# 9-11



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

9-11


----------



## DOMS (Sep 11, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> 9-11


----------



## DOMS (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> It's been 6 years.. Get the fuck over it..!!



Go choke on a cock and die, bitch.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

DOMS said:


>


It's my moment of silence for those who have perished.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> It's been 6 years.. Get the fuck over it..!!


That wasn't nice.

Too bad you weren't on the plane.


----------



## Splash Log (Sep 11, 2007)

It was all the jews fault


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

Splash Log said:


> It was all the jews fault



Go back to your bunker Adolph!


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> I'm sick of hearing about it.. It's on every fucking news channel.. Maybe i'd have more sympathy if you guys weren't IRA supportters before those attacks happened.


Well I plan on taking my 401k and transfering some of the funds to a Roth IRA accoount, I would get more money in the end.


----------



## Burner02 (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> I'm sick of hearing about it.. It's on every fucking news channel.. Maybe i'd have more sympathy if you guys weren't IRA supportters before those attacks happened.


 


min0 lee said:


> Well I plan on taking my 401k and transfering some of the funds to a Roth IRA accoount, I would get more money in the end.


I've got a conventional IRA...I'm needing to switch it over to a ROTH myself.

Oh...and ignorant people....


----------



## Splash Log (Sep 11, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Go back to your bunker Adolph!



Sorry it must of been these guys:


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> I'm sick of hearing about it.. It's on every fucking news channel.. Maybe i'd have more sympathy if you guys weren't IRA supportters before those attacks happened.



Im surprised you can even see the news with your head so far up your uncompassionate ass.

If you dont like whats on the news wipe the shit out of your eyes, find the remote, and turn it the hell off you fucking troll.

Sure, it was a long time ago, we get it, but it still happened and people are going to respect the people who died there for a long time yet.

Deal with it.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 11, 2007)

YouTube Video











that one wasn't hit by a plane...


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> WoW Wee, another internet sheep shagging Welsh Homo.!!
> 
> I'll watch whatever i wanna fucking watch..


Then don't complain.


----------



## PreMier (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> It's been 6 years.. Get the fuck over it..!!



pretty dis respectful of you.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> WoW Wee, another internet sheep shagging Welsh Homo.!!
> 
> I'll watch whatever i wanna fucking watch..



But you obviously dont want to watch the news, because it has 9-11 stuff on it.

And take your homosexuality issues somewhere else, ill chug whoevers cock i damn well please, honey.


----------



## ANCAM (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> WoW Wee, another internet sheep shagging Welsh Homo.!!
> 
> I'll watch whatever i wanna fucking watch..



Can't this douche bag be booted of this forum for his "short bus" comments?


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

ANCAM said:


> Can't this douche bag be booted of this forum for his "short bus" comments?


Everybody is entitled to their opinion however wrong they are.


----------



## Witchblade (Sep 11, 2007)

9/11 was a terrible tragedy and tintin is being quite disrespectful here. However, I believe 9/11 definitely is getting a relatively big amount of attention in the media compared to other catastrophes and major tragedies. If looking at a more global level, namely the Middle East, China and some Third World countries, one could even see a level of hypocrisy in the way 9/11 is getting attention compared to the horrors happening daily in the previously mentioned places.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 11, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> Everybody is entitled to their opinion however wrong they are.



Amen.

Disrespecting the dead is a cunty thing to do, but its not against the rules by any means.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 11, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> 9/11 was a terrible tragedy and tintin is being quite disrespectful here. However, I believe 9/11 definitely is getting a relatively big amount of attention in the media compared to other catastrophes and major tragedies. If looking at a more global level, namely the Middle East, China and some Third World countries, one could even see a level of hypocrisy in the way 9/11 is getting attention compared to the horrors happening daily in the previously mentioned places.



Its probably true, but theres no call for saying "Get the fuck over it!".

I was always taught "If you dont have anything nice to say, you're a miserable arse and should shut up more."


----------



## NordicNacho (Sep 11, 2007)

"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves.

Colin Powell


----------



## tucker01 (Sep 11, 2007)

We could try and find out?


----------



## DOMS (Sep 11, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> 9/11 was a terrible tragedy and tintin is being quite disrespectful here. However, I believe 9/11 definitely is getting a relatively big amount of attention in the media compared to other catastrophes and major tragedies. If looking at a more global level, namely the Middle East, China and some Third World countries, one could even see a level of hypocrisy in the way 9/11 is getting attention compared to the horrors happening daily in the previously mentioned places.



The difference being that this day is for *Americans *to remember *Americans *that died on that day.

Also, no one is stopping other people from mourning their dead or telling those same people that they have no right to mourn because other bad things happen to other people.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> Oh no, please don't ban me.. i'll be devasted if you did..!!?



Then, by all means, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.


----------



## fyredup1286 (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> It's been 6 years.. Get the fuck over it..!!



    GTFO You Fuckn Scumbag!


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

DOMS said:


> The difference being that this day is for *Americans *to remember *Americans *that died on that day.
> 
> Also, no one is stopping other people from mourning their dead or telling those same people that they have no right to mourn because other bad things happen to other people.


Took the words right out of my mouth.

I never mention 9-11 even though I was less than ten miles from it.
I know a lot of friends, co-workers and customers who worked or were involded at the twin towers.

So I payed my respect today, on the anniversary.

Don't you celebrate your birthday? Your anniversary?

Do you mourn a deceased parent, I do.


----------



## Splash Log (Sep 11, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> 9-11









Has been to long to make light of the issue? Everyone makes fun of tragedy but for some reason this one is still taboo years after the fact.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> Oh no, please don't ban me.. i'll be devasted if you did..!!?


I don't think I'll remember you when pass......


----------



## KelJu (Sep 11, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> 9/11 was a terrible tragedy and tintin is being quite disrespectful here. However, I believe 9/11 definitely is getting a relatively big amount of attention in the media compared to other catastrophes and major tragedies. If looking at a more global level, namely the Middle East, China and some Third World countries, one could even see a level of hypocrisy in the way 9/11 is getting attention compared to the horrors happening daily in the previously mentioned places.





I agree a 100%. The people that died in 9/11 are not special. They are no more special than the people who died at pearl harbor. I totally recognize that their deaths were a tragedy, but no more than any other death of a person who dies before their time. 9/11 is misused. 9/11 should be a reminder that we are not invincible, and we should live our lives to the best of our ability, because we may go at anytime. 

I do not jump on the 9/11 memorial bandwagon, because I personally believe politicians use it as an excuse to rape our constitution and sell our liberties out from under us. 

But, I don't want to go down that path right now, I think we can save that argument for another thread. We will have that argument over and over, and never really get anywhere. I hope the families of the people who lost their lives on that day have made peace and returned to living their lives.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

Splash Log said:


> Has been to long to make light of the issue? Everyone makes fun of tragedy but for some reason this one is still taboo years after the fact.


I don't know the time limit for tragedies like this but to some it would be never.


----------



## tucker01 (Sep 11, 2007)

tingnting said:


> Oh no, please don't ban me.. i'll be devasted if you did..!!?



Do you have anything of Value to add to this site?  Or are you content being a troll providing nothing but shit disturbing ideas?


----------



## DOMS (Sep 11, 2007)

KelJu said:


> I agree a 100%. The people that died in 9/11 are not special. They are no more special than the people who died at pearl harbor. I totally recognize that their deaths were a tragedy, but no more than any other death of a person who dies before their time. 9/11 is misused. 9/11 should be a reminder that we are not invincible, and we should live our lives to the best of our ability, because we may go at anytime.
> 
> I do not jump on the 9/11 memorial bandwagon, because I personally believe politicians use it as an excuse to rape our constitution and sell our liberties out from under us.
> 
> But, I don't want to go down that path right now, I think we can save that argument for another thread. We will have that argument over and over, and never really get anywhere. I hope the families of the people who lost their lives on that day have made peace and returned to living their lives.



You're right. From now on I'm not going to give a shit about anyone that dies.  Especially innocents or children.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 11, 2007)

KelJu said:


> I agree a 100%. The people that died in 9/11 are not special. They are no more special than the people who died at pearl harbor. I totally recognize that their deaths were a tragedy, but no more than any other death of a person who dies before their time. 9/11 is misused. 9/11 should be a reminder that we are not invincible, and we should live our lives to the best of our ability, because we may go at anytime.
> 
> I do not jump on the 9/11 memorial bandwagon, because I personally believe politicians use it as an excuse to rape our constitution and sell our liberties out from under us.
> 
> But, I don't want to go down that path right now, I think we can save that argument for another thread. We will have that argument over and over, and never really get anywhere. I hope the families of the people who lost their lives on that day have made peace and returned to living their lives.


I also have mixed thoughts about some of this but I agree we should save it for another day so that what ever I say will not be disrespectful to the families of those who died on 9/11.

As much as I feel you are a moron tingnting banning you for what you have said so far doesn't seem right.  Of course if you were here in front of me saying this then I would have a more personal reaction.  I've cried over very few things in my adult life.  9/11 at around 10 pm when the initial shock wore off I wept.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 11, 2007)

DOMS said:


> You're right. From now on I'm not going to give a shit about anyone that dies.  Especially innocents or children.




You know that isn't what I am saying. The people in the trade center were innocent. They were just there working their 9-5 job when some really messed up shit happened to them. I am not saying that their death shouldn't be morned. It should be, especially by their family members.  

I have a lot of thoughts on this subject, but I am trying to be respectful, so I'll them to myself.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

I understand where you are all coming from, but this is the anniversary.
There are things that bother me, like people trying to cash in on 9-11, the fake firefighters or the constant BS over who, what or when are they going to rebuild on ground zero.

I agree, it does get played out but most tragedies do. This one happened on our own backyard. Sheesh, I wasn't around for Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assignation but I still show respect to those events.


----------



## bigss75 (Sep 11, 2007)

KelJu said:


> They are no more special than the people who died at pearl harbor.



Pearl harbor was a preemptive military attack that killed servicemen, I think less then 100 were civilians, whereas 9/11 was a terrorist attack that aimed at strictly civilians. Both were horrible but 9/11 was totally different situation.

Its weird to think it been 6 years , seemed like it happened one or two years ago.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

KelJu said:


> I agree a 100%. The people that died in 9/11 are not special. They are no more special than the people who died at pearl harbor. I totally recognize that their deaths were a tragedy, but no more than any other death of a person who dies before their time. 9/11 is misused. 9/11 should be a reminder that we are not invincible, and we should live our lives to the best of our ability, because we may go at anytime.
> 
> I do not jump on the 9/11 memorial bandwagon, because I personally believe politicians use it as an excuse to rape our constitution and sell our liberties out from under us.
> 
> But, I don't want to go down that path right now, I think we can save that argument for another thread. We will have that argument over and over, and never really get anywhere. I hope the families of the people who lost their lives on that day have made peace and returned to living their lives.


I can see where he's coming from, unfortunately we had a lot of people take advantage of this tragedy.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

It does feel funny looking at the city skyline and not seeing the towers there.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 11, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> I understand where you are all coming from, but this is the anniversary.
> There are things that bother me, like people trying to cash in on 9-11, the fake firefighters or the constant BS over who, what or when are they going to rebuild on ground zero.
> 
> I agree, it does get played out but most tragedies do. This one happened on our own backyard. Sheesh, I wasn't around for Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assignation but I still show respect to those events.






I'll throw one thought out there, because I don't think it is disrespectful. Louis Black said one of the most important things that I have ever heard. He said during crisis, he used humor to get through bad times. He said our enemies have lost their sense of humor, and that is what makes them dangerous. 9/11 was horrible, but people need not be so wound up about it, because that makes us as dangerous as the people who did this to us. We lose our ability to think rationally, because our hate blinds us. Maybe we could lighten up a little, and it sure as hell would make the healing process a little bit easier.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 11, 2007)

Where's all the April 19 people, no one ever brings that one up and that was done by American citizens, one ex-US Army even....

On it's 10th Anniversary Bush didn't even show up, he dedicated a library/museum instead....

Also on that day in Waco Texas 2 years prior.....

and before that the acts of terror on April 29 1992


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

KelJu said:


> I'll throw one thought out there, because I don't think it is disrespectful. Louis Black said one of the most important things that I have ever heard. He said during crisis, he used humor to get through bad times. He said our enemies have lost their sense of humor, and that is what makes them dangerous. 9/11 was horrible, but people need not be so wound up about it, because that makes us as dangerous as the people who did this to us. We lose our ability to think rationally, because our hate blinds us. Maybe we could lighten up a little, and it sure as hell would make the healing process a little bit easier.


It's one thing for Splash log to add a little humor but this thingthing was just being a jerk.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

maniclion said:


> Where's all the April 19 people, no one ever brings that one up and that was done by American citizens, one ex-US Army even....
> 
> On it's 10th Anniversary Bush didn't even show up, he dedicated a library/museum instead....
> 
> ...


Good question. 
why is it we don't remember those.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 11, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> It's one thing for Splash log to add a little humor but this thingthing was just being a jerk.



I agree, he was being a total asshole.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 11, 2007)

KelJu said:


> 9/11 was horrible, but people need not be so wound up about it, because that makes us as dangerous as the people who did this to us.



Ah, what a load of shit.


----------



## brogers (Sep 11, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Save the conspiracy crap for another day, sicko.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 11, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## shiznit2169 (Sep 11, 2007)

KelJu said:


> I agree a 100%. The people that died in 9/11 are not special. They are no more special than the people who died at pearl harbor. I totally recognize that their deaths were a tragedy, but no more than any other death of a person who dies before their time. 9/11 is misused. 9/11 should be a reminder that we are not invincible, and we should live our lives to the best of our ability, because we may go at anytime.
> 
> I do not jump on the 9/11 memorial bandwagon, because I personally believe politicians use it as an excuse to rape our constitution and sell our liberties out from under us.
> 
> But, I don't want to go down that path right now, I think we can save that argument for another thread. We will have that argument over and over, and never really get anywhere. I hope the families of the people who lost their lives on that day have made peace and returned to living their lives.



Took the words right out of my mouth. I totally agree. What happens in the past is in the past. Celebrating the anniversary, mourning, and paying respects if fine but the media (and most people) always make it a bigger deal than it should be especially if it happened 6 years ago. 

What about Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing?

What about the Columbine shootings? The recent Virginia Tech shootings? Or all the deadly school shootings that have occurred?

What about hurricane Katrina? The Great Hurricane of 1780 that claimed 22,000+ lives? 

What about all the deadly earthquakes that claimed many lives as well? 

You can say what you want that some of these examples are acts of Mother Nature and doesn't "count" or the fact that 9/11 is the most recent out of all of them, it still doesn't matter. 9/11 was just a freak thing that happened and it was unfortunate all those people who died were there at the time, whether they were on the plane or in the buildings. 

The other thing that surprises me is that other countries around the world see this stuff about 9/11 on TV but i have never seen anything about the deadly Tsunami or other disasters in other parts of the world when their anniversary comes around.


----------



## PreMier (Sep 11, 2007)

i think that 9-11 is so signifigant because it marks the begining.. the begining of the war on terror


----------



## AKIRA (Sep 11, 2007)

Splash Log said:


> Has been to long to make light of the issue? Everyone makes fun of tragedy but for some reason this one is still taboo years after the fact.



I gotta admit, I laughed pretty hard when I saw this pic.  It might be cuz I was a Rampage fan.



bigss75 said:


> Pearl harbor was a preemptive military attack that killed servicemen, I think less then 100 were civilians, whereas 9/11 was a terrorist attack that aimed at strictly civilians. Both were horrible but 9/11 was totally different situation.



Bingo and agreed.

I dont mind tingting's impatience cuz I have felt the same way in other areas...like mourning fucking Dale Earnhardt.  tingting needs to know that this  isnt a country remembering some redneck that died, but a country that was attacked.  Directly.

Its a very well deserved touchy subject.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 11, 2007)

PreMier said:


> i think that 9-11 is so signifigant because it marks the begining.. the begining of the war on terror


Very much so, it showed the world how easy it is to come into our country and do damage, it wasn't just the twin towers they also hit the pentagon and where on their way to hit the white house.


----------



## Jodi (Sep 11, 2007)

PreMier said:


> i think that 9-11 is so signifigant because it marks the begining.. the begining of the war on terror


I think of 9/11 as the day America realized that we were no longer safe from the outside world.  We were naive for so long thinking "it will never happen to us".  We were wrong and to me, this is what 9/11 represents.


----------



## danzik17 (Sep 11, 2007)

We haven't been "safe" for a long time imo.  9/11 was terrible yes, but I do still believe that our nation building/interventionalist policies led directly to this.  It was even given as one of the main reasons by the terrorist groups themselves.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Jodi (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm not saying we were safe, what I think is that we, most Americans, _thought _we were safe.  9/11 was our wakeup call.  Sad that tragedy like this had to take place.  You would have thought that the first time the Towers were attacked that we would have paid closer attention.  Guess it took disaster to open our eyes.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 11, 2007)

A friend told me there have been five 9/11 level events thwarted since that wake  up call.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 11, 2007)

Yes, 9/11 is a terrible event, but it was mostly symbolic.

The deaths were horrific.

But let's look at the big picture. 

The population of the U.S. at the times 9-11-2002 was about 298 million.

About 3,000 died.

The Pentagon has murdered far more people: Guatemala, Camobodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and in the continental U.S. during the 1600 to 1900s.

Let's keep things in perspective.  

Terrorism is not the biggest threat we face, IMO.


----------



## tingnting (Sep 12, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Do you have anything of Value to add to this site?  Or are you content being a troll providing nothing but shit disturbing ideas?



Don't talk to me about being disturbing when you have  an avatar of some spastic child sitting on a Peadophiles cock..!!


----------



## tingnting (Sep 12, 2007)

What about dedicating a thread to the brave terrorists who hijacked those planes & died for a great cause..??

I must admit i was a little dissapointed with the number of people that died, only 3,000.!!?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

tingnting said:
			
		

> What about dedicating a thread to the brave terrorists who kidnapped me and raised me as their sex slave?
> 
> I must admit i was a little disappointed with the small number of these terrorists that I've blown, only 3,000.!!?





tingnting said:


> Don't talk to me about being disturbing when you have  a picture of me as a spastic child sitting on a Peadophiles cock..!!


----------



## tingnting (Sep 12, 2007)

hahaha..!! that's quite funny.. Well done Bonecrusher..


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 12, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Do you have anything of Value to add to this site? Or are you content being a troll providing nothing but shit disturbing ideas?


 


tingnting said:


> Don't talk to me about being disturbing when you have an avatar of some spastic child sitting on a Peadophiles cock..!!


 


tingnting said:


> What about dedicating a thread to the brave terrorists who hijacked those planes & died for a great cause..??
> 
> I must admit i was a little dissapointed with the number of people that died, only 3,000.!!?


 
I think thats a pretty conclusive answer, Iain.


----------



## tingnting (Sep 12, 2007)

Gazhole said:


> I think thats a pretty conclusive answer, Iain.



My name isn't Iain..!?


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 12, 2007)

tingnting said:


> My name isn't Iain..!?


 
 what do you want, a cookie?


----------



## DOMS (Sep 12, 2007)

Gazhole said:


> I think thats a pretty conclusive answer, Iain.



You're correct.  This guy is a troll and adds nothing to the site.  He's the same caliber as those who were banned a year ago.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 12, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> The Pentagon has murdered far more people: Guatemala, Camobodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and in the continental U.S. during the 1600 to 1900s.
> 
> Let's keep things in perspective.
> 
> Terrorism is not the biggest threat we face, IMO.



you're right.. it's people who think like you.


----------



## tucker01 (Sep 12, 2007)

Ciao.


----------



## brogers (Sep 12, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> Yes, 9/11 is a terrible event, but it was mostly symbolic.
> 
> The deaths were horrific.
> 
> ...


 
Perspective is certainly something you lack.  The radical muslims who killed 3,000 Americans are the same people who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in movie theaters, markets, and malls.  They glorify suicide attacks, they glorify murdering innocent civilians.  They video tape themselves proclaiming this!  They video tape themselves cutting the heads off of innocent civilians and then posting the videos on the internet.  They frequently call for the destruction of America, Israel, and institution of Islamic law across the world to establish a global caliphate.  They teach their children Jews come from pigs and Christians come from apes.

Whereas we take pictures of our children sitting on Santa's lap, they take pictures of their children with bomb vests on and holding AK-47s.  We glorfy life and happiness, they glorify death and pain.  All of this is obvious to anyone who's seen the media they, themselves make available.

You are a blind fool, and it's people like you who make us vulnerable.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> Perspective is certainly something you lack.  The radical muslims who killed 3,000 Americans are the same people who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in movie theaters, markets, and malls.  They glorify suicide attacks, they glorify murdering innocent civilians.  They video tape themselves proclaiming this!  They video tape themselves cutting the heads off of innocent civilians and then posting the videos on the internet.  They frequently call for the destruction of America, Israel, and institution of Islamic law across the world to establish a global caliphate.  They teach their children Jews come from pigs and Christians come from apes.
> 
> Whereas we take pictures of our children sitting on Santa's lap, they take pictures of their children with bomb vests on and holding AK-47s.  We glorfy life and happiness, they glorify death and pain.  All of this is obvious to anyone who's seen the media they, themselves make available.
> 
> You are a blind fool, and it's people like you who make us vulnerable.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> Save the conspiracy crap for another day, sicko.



I said no plane hit that building.  How is that a conspiracy?  Are you claiming a plane hit it?


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 12, 2007)

busyLivin said:


>



I'm a loser for posting a video that you don't want to see or think about?  I'm a loser because your an ignorant facist who can't think for themselves?  Oh, ok.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 12, 2007)

It's pretty sad actually.  If you even question the 'official story' you might as well be in league with terrorists.  No dissent.  Accept everything as is, and god forbid, don't ask any questions.  


Actually, you don't know shit about any of the theories sorrounding 911, there are hours and hours of documentaries that provide alot of empircal evidence about alot of very strange occurances.  Someone knew something was going to happen way ahead of time.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> Perspective is certainly something you lack.  The radical muslims who killed 3,000 Americans are the same people who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in movie theaters, markets, and malls.  They glorify suicide attacks, they glorify murdering innocent civilians.  They video tape themselves proclaiming this!  They video tape themselves cutting the heads off of innocent civilians and then posting the videos on the internet.  They frequently call for the destruction of America, Israel, and institution of Islamic law across the world to establish a global caliphate.  They teach their children Jews come from pigs and Christians come from apes.
> 
> Whereas we take pictures of our children sitting on Santa's lap, they take pictures of their children with bomb vests on and holding AK-47s.  We glorfy life and happiness, they glorify death and pain.  All of this is obvious to anyone who's seen the media they, themselves make available.
> 
> You are a blind fool, and it's people like you who make us vulnerable.



I agree with YOUR points.

Islamic extremists are bad.  I am against them.

Israel is not our problem.  

Yes, they hate Xtians.

That's why I say: let's fight their attack _inside_ the U.S. but don't meddle in their affairs.

Al-Qaeda has benefitted from Iraq.  It's the best thing that happened to them.

Now, we have to deal with it.

As for suicide bombing and killing civilians - it's a Muslim issue NOT OURS.

Unless, they do it _inside_ our borders.

The Americans are supporting a government in Iraq that supports Hezbollah.

Does that make sense?


----------



## DOMS (Sep 12, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Actually, you don't know shit about any of the theories sorrounding 911, there are hours and hours of documentaries that provide alot of empircal evidence about alot of very strange occurances.  Someone knew something was going to happen way ahead of time.



One thing that I _do_ find interesting was the increased short interest in the shares of airline companies right before the attack.

But there are also plenty of other theories about 9/11 that are just crap.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

The time line of the event alone makes a very bad indictment on BushCo.  The lack of action over the period of time after the aircraft had already gone  missing and specifically between when the 1st one hit the towers and the second one hit, then on to the third one slamming into the Pentagon is very suspicious.

If that alone were to be the only indicting element of this then the conspiracy theorists would be without substance in their charts, movies, and real time breakdowns.  Only someone with foolish dedication to their political party would ignore all the of the aspects of the attack that these people point out.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> One thing that I _do_ find interesting was the increased short interest in the shares of airline companies right before the attack.
> 
> But there are also plenty of other theories about 9/11 that are just crap.


Has that not happened again here recently?


----------



## brogers (Sep 12, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> It's pretty sad actually. If you even question the 'official story' you might as well be in league with terrorists. No dissent. Accept everything as is, and god forbid, don't ask any questions.
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't know shit about any of the theories sorrounding 911, there are hours and hours of documentaries that provide alot of empircal evidence about alot of very strange occurances. Someone knew something was going to happen way ahead of time.


 
What's actually pretty sad is you bringing conspiracy garbage into this thread.  What's even sadder than believing the "OFFICIAL STORY" is believing ridiculous video compilations put together by teenagers and uploaded to youtube, tardo.  You posted a video of Tower 7, and said "this one wasn't hit by a plane" it's crystal clear what the intent was.  You're a moron, and any structural engineer will tell you that.  I doubt you or your teenage conspiracy buddies with a youtube account have any background in construction or engineering.  So instead of believing, 1) your eyes, 2) Professional Engineers, 3) Your government, you believe in Loose Change (or one of its variants).  You're a real f'n genius, way smarter than all of us, we're just too dumb to see it.  Blame Cheney or Bush.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> What's actually pretty sad is you bringing conspiracy garbage into this thread.  What's even sadder than believing the "OFFICIAL STORY" is believing ridiculous video compilations put together by teenagers and uploaded to youtube, tardo.  You posted a video of Tower 7, and said "this one wasn't hit by a plane" it's crystal clear what the intent was.  You're a moron, and any structural engineer will tell you that.  I doubt you or your teenage conspiracy buddies with a youtube account have any background in construction or engineering.  So instead of believing, 1) your eyes, 2) Professional Engineers, 3) Your government, you believe in Loose Change (or one of its variants).  You're a real f'n genius, way smarter than all of us, we're just too dumb to see it.  Blame Cheney or Bush.


Hey ... lay off of BigDyl.  He didn't do anything to deserve the flame job brogers.


----------



## brogers (Sep 12, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Hey ... lay off of BigDyl. He didn't do anything to deserve the flame job brogers.


 
He provoked this conspiracy bullshit with his video and comments, I don't think it was appropriate.  I certainly wouldn't claim WWII was a conspiracy on the anniversary of D-Day, when thousands died, would you?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> He provoked this conspiracy bullshit with his video and comments, I don't think it was appropriate.  I certainly wouldn't claim WWII was a conspiracy on the anniversary of D-Day, when thousands died, would you?


It's not okay to censor other people because of how you feel about an issue.  We all showed restraint in how we expressed our selves yesterday, but that was yesterday.  This is no longer 9/11/07 ... it's the day after and all bets are off.  

Serious debate and discussion may now begin.  Flaming is *not* needed.


----------



## brogers (Sep 12, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> It's not okay to censor other people because of how you feel about an issue. We all showed restraint in how we expressed our selves yesterday, but that was yesterday. This is no longer 9/11/07 ... it's the day after and all bets are off.
> 
> Serious debate and discussion may now begin. Flaming is *not* needed.


 
Are you blind, or not paying attention?  Did you not see the part where he called busyLiving an "Ignorant Fascist?  Pretty sure that's stronger language than calling him a tardo...


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> Are you blind, or not paying attention?  Did you not see the part where he called busyLiving an "Ignorant Fascist?  Pretty sure that's stronger language than calling him a tardo...


 ... now now ... play nice young man.  Attacking BigDyl is not an option.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 12, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> It's not okay to censor other people because of how you feel about an issue.  We all showed restraint in how we expressed our selves yesterday, but that was yesterday.  This is no longer 9/11/07 ... it's the day after and all bets are off.
> 
> Serious debate and discussion may now begin.  Flaming is *not* needed.



Oh my God! your right, I don't have to hold my tongue anymore.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 12, 2007)

KelJu said:


> 9/11 is blown way the fuck out of proportion.



Not if you understand the true significance of it.  Which Jodi already covered.



KelJu said:


> More kids die everyday from starvation than people killed in the towers.



Not in _this _country, and that's the *damn point!*


----------



## KelJu (Sep 12, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> ... now now ... play nice young man.  Attacking BigDyl is not an option.




I might as well take the fucker off ignore, sinse every post he makes is quoted by somebody telling him how much of a moron he is.


I don't know brogers, maybe after the 20th insult, you might consider you are the problem and not everybody else.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

KelJu said:


> I might as well take the fucker off ignore, sinse every post he makes is quoted by somebody telling him how much of a moron he is.
> 
> 
> I don't know brogers, maybe after the 20th insult, you might consider you are the problem and not everybody else.


brogers likes to "debate" the issues.  You will see him quoted often in a debate thread I post in brother K because he and I seldom agree on anything ... same as Busy and I.  The difference is Busy and I can debate an issue without either of us feeling the need of resorting to a nuclear response.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Not if you understand the true significance of it.  Which Jodi already covered.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in _this _country, and that's the *damn point!*



You are right. Not in this country. 


The difference between you and I on this issue is simple. You are a patriot. You love and care about Americans and the strength of our country. You love your Country with all of your heart. Is this a bad thing? Hell no. The country needs people like you.


I  care just as much about a stranger in Afghanistan as I do a stranger in New York city. Unless I know a person personally and share a bond with them, I see everyone else as equal value. I tend to lean toward the young with my sympathies, because I just don't want terrible things happening to children. I do not trust my government, and I do not respect it. I love my Country, but conditionally. I love my Country to the extent that I am appreciative for being born in one of the greatest countries on earth where there is the most possibility of making something out of myself as long as I put out the effort. The Country needs people like me, also. 


You and I create a balance that keeps the country from swinging too far one way or the other. The country needs people like brogers and bigdyl, also. The two polar opposites keep things relatively in the middle. 


That is just how I see it.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 12, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> brogers likes to "debate" the issues.  You will see him quoted often in a debate thread I post in brother K because he and I seldom agree on anything ... same as Busy and I.  The difference is Busy and I can debate an issue without either of us feeling the need of resorting to a nuclear response.



Yeah busy practices more restraint which is something I respect him for. Restraint is something I practice at everyday, and I am only good at some of the time. 

Brogers is good for my emotional intelligence and growth. He keeps me constantly on restraint practice.


----------



## danzik17 (Sep 12, 2007)

Good point brogers, I need to start trusting our government more.  After all, it's not as if they:
Took away Habeus Corpus
Conduct illegal surveillance
Lied to us about the reasons for going to war
Lied about the progress of the war
Give no-bid contracts to the VP's old company by the billions
Condone torture as a means of intelligence gathering
Have spent our country into bankruptcy
Have contracts to build "internment camps" out in the US desert
Hide trillions of dollars worth of accounting information from taxpayers
The list goes on......
What the hell was I thinking.  I'll just go back to following the rest of the sheep, just like you!


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Yeah busy practices more restraint which is something I respect him for. Restraint is something I practice at everyday, and I am only good at some of the time.
> 
> Brogers is good for my emotional intelligence and growth. He keeps me constantly on restraint practice.


You do see that you have improved over the last year though right?  

brogers pushes your buttons, but with other people that have not yet reached their maximum alloted amount of idiot posts you are a more tolerant person then you were a year ago.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 12, 2007)

KelJu said:


> You are right. Not in this country.
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I on this issue is simple. You are a patriot. You love and care about Americans and the strength of our country. You love your Country with all of your heart. Is this a bad thing? Hell no. The country needs people like you.
> ...



Fair enough.  But you can't save the world, and you can't make them save themselves.  You're in for a lot of disappointment and frustration.

My goal is to improve my little piece of the world and thereby improve the country that I live in. And I'm making good headway.

And yes, your goal is good, too.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

danzik17 said:


> Good point brogers, I need to start trusting our government more.  After all, it's not as if they:
> Took away Habeus Corpus
> Conduct illegal surveillance
> Lied to us about the reasons for going to war
> ...


Good to see you get back in line.  We'll email you our list of who we require you to vote for.  Don't worry, the Diebold voting system already has your vote recorded, but we do need to keep up appearances so it is best if you go to the voting boths.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 12, 2007)

KelJu said:


> You are right. Not in this country.
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I on this issue is simple. You are a patriot. You love and care about Americans and the strength of our country. You love your Country with all of your heart. Is this a bad thing? Hell no. The country needs people like you.
> ...



Great post


----------



## DOMS (Sep 12, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Has that not happened again here recently?



Airline stocks get shorted a lot. They're sort of subsidized by the government.  Every 10 to 15 years, they fall on "hard times", declare bankruptcy, and the government bails them out.  The shorts are always on the lookout for these drops.  They're easy money.

But the amount of shorts before 9/11 was way higher than normal.  I'd really like to see a list of _who _was shorting those stocks in such a big way.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

> You are right. Not in this country.
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I on this issue is simple. You are a patriot. You love and care about Americans and the strength of our country. You love your Country with all of your heart. Is this a bad thing? Hell no. The country needs people like you.
> ...





> Fair enough.  But you can't save the world, and you can't make them save themselves.  You're in for a lot of disappointment and frustration.
> 
> My goal is to improve my little piece of the world and thereby improve the country that I live in. And I'm making good headway.
> 
> And yes, your goal is good, too.


Can min0 send out the wedding invitations yet?


----------



## DOMS (Sep 12, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Can min0 send out the wedding invitations yet?



But the conservatives won't let us get married!


----------



## brogers (Sep 12, 2007)

danzik17 said:


> Good point brogers, I need to start trusting our government more. After all, it's not as if they:
> 
> Took away Habeus Corpus
> Conduct illegal surveillance
> ...


 
If you don't believe it's legitimate, stop voting, stop paying attention, and stop complaining, since it's such a scam and conspiracy, there's obviously nothing you can do about it.  They are powerful enough to do all those things you mentioned, so surely "they" are more powerful than some punk on an internet message board, so you might as well quit bitching.

I certainly don't trust the government with much and am a fiscal libertarian, however, I mention the US Govt as a source of information on the attacks on 9/11, along with eyeballs, and professional engineers.  I feel as though I'm losing intelligence by just arguing for that which is clear to anyone with any understanding of the events...  I believe the saying is.. "Don't argue with a fool, because those who are watching may not be able to tell the difference between."  So think what you will, people who buy into the conspiracy BS are beyond reasoning.

I find it funny you would use the word "sheep" considering you sound identical to the "sheep" led by the MoveOn.org/DailyKos shepherd.


----------



## Splash Log (Sep 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> But the conservatives won't let us get married!



Wont let who get married?


----------



## KelJu (Sep 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> But the conservatives won't let us get married!


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

Splash Log said:


> Wont let who get married?


Pay attention splash.  Read back a few posts and try to keep up.  I know it's hard ... but you can do it.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

> Originally Posted by *DOMS*
> _But the conservatives won't let us get married!  _





>


min0 will be disappointed ...


----------



## brogers (Sep 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Airline stocks get shorted a lot. They're sort of subsidized by the government. Every 10 to 15 years, they fall on "hard times", declare bankruptcy, and the government bails them out. The shorts are always on the lookout for these drops. They're easy money.
> 
> But the amount of shorts before 9/11 was way higher than normal. I'd really like to see a list of _who _was shorting those stocks in such a big way.


 
The 9/11 commision report covered this somewhat, market analysts have also declared it was nothing extraordinary.



> Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options ??? instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price ??? surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 ??? highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.​


 


> The market was in bad shape in the summer and early fall, and you know there were a lot of people who believed that there would be a sell-off in the market long before Sept. 11. For instance, American Airlines was at $40 in May and fell to $29 on Sept. 10; United was at $37 in May and fell to $31 on Sept. 10. These stocks were falling anyway, and it would have been a good time to short them.???
> 
> The downward trend in the airline stocks was backed up in the pre-Sept. 11 trading picture. Insight reported that there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11 (June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 with 1,144 puts, April 16 with 1,019 and Jan. 8 with 1,315 puts). In the same period, United Airlines had slightly more action (Aug. 8 with 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 with 8,212 and March 13 with 8,072).


 
the first is from the 9/11 commission and the latter is from newsmax (indeed a conservative news website, but the facts are verifiable)


----------



## KelJu (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> If you don't believe it's legitimate, stop voting, stop paying attention, and stop complaining, since it's such a scam and conspiracy, there's obviously nothing you can do about it.  They are powerful enough to do all those things you mentioned, so surely "they" are more powerful than some punk on an internet message board, so you might as well quit bitching.
> 
> I certainly don't trust the government with much and am a fiscal libertarian, however, I mention the US Govt as a source of information on the attacks on 9/11, along with eyeballs, and professional engineers.  I feel as though I'm losing intelligence by just arguing for that which is clear to anyone with any understanding of the events...  I believe the saying is.. "Don't argue with a fool, because those who are watching may not be able to tell the difference between."  So think what you will, people who buy into the conspiracy BS are beyond reasoning.
> 
> ...



Talking about it, and complaining about it does do something. It spreads ideas. It gets people involved and gets them to think. Our government can do whatever they want as long as the people do not react. It is boundary testing. Our government constantly test the boundaries of its power. As long as we are complacent, they will test a little more and a little more until eventually they know they have absolute power and the US is just another China.   

When they do something and we bitch and then threaten to vote them out of power, they straighten up. The Republicans will be gone shortly. We will get a  few years of the democrats. Once we are fed up with their shit, we will go back to a cleaned up republicans party. Then, when they stop doing what they promised they would do, we go back to Democrats. It is a good system.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American



I'm not a huge conspiracy fan, but the stuff similar to what I quoted are bothersome.  It uses percentages on the part where it talks about the shorts, but uses a literal number when discussing the longs.  What if the short position was a million shares?  They could easily absorb the loss from the 115,000 long stocks.

This sort of crap is part of Statistics 101 on how *not *to do things.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 12, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Ciao.


 
Well done, that personal attack on you was low.

May he be anally raped. What an idiot, what set that fool off anyway?


----------



## brogers (Sep 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I'm not a huge conspiracy fan, but the stuff similar to what I quoted are bothersome. It uses percentages on the part where it talks about the shorts, but uses a literal number when discussing the longs. What if the short position was a million shares? They could easily absorb the loss from the 115,000 long stocks.
> 
> This sort of crap is part of Statistics 101 on how *not *to do things.


 
September 6+7, the Chicago Options exchange handled about 470,000 put options (shorts) on United

September 10, American Airlines had about 450,000 puts... 

if it's suspicious to you, why don't you take a few minutes and examine it?


----------



## bigss75 (Sep 12, 2007)

danzik17 said:


> Good point brogers, I need to start trusting our government more.  After all, it's not as if they:
> Took away Habeus Corpus
> Conduct illegal surveillance
> Lied to us about the reasons for going to war
> ...



5. There isnt a bigger contracting company that could even handle the iraq job
6. I don't understand why we should cottle these terrorists, the [SIZE=-1]Geneva Convention was written for this type war. 
7.Clinton left with 6 trillion dollars (with the .com boom you'd imagine it would be alot less) its around  9 now so you can't blame it all on Big Bush

As for 8,9  I have never heard that from any source let alone a creditable one.
[/SIZE]


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 12, 2007)

Well this thread sure took a wrong turn, all I wrote were the numbers 9-11 in white....sort of a moment of silence....hah!

The opposite occurred, so far this thread had a bunch of mini arguments, one jerk getting banned, name calling, BigDyl making a cameo appearance, conspiracy theories, name calling, Libs vs. Cons and now I am getting married. 

Just like old times.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> September 6+7, the Chicago Options exchange handled about 470,000 put options (shorts) on United
> 
> September 10, American Airlines had about 450,000 puts...
> 
> if it's suspicious to you, why don't you take a few minutes and examine it?


What would be the normal or average amount of puts on any given day?


----------



## bigss75 (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> September 6+7, the Chicago Options exchange handled about 470,000 put options (shorts) on United
> 
> September 10, American Airlines had about 450,000 puts...
> 
> if it's suspicious to you, why don't you take a few minutes and examine it?



Urban Legends Reference Pages: Put Paid

Shorting airline stocks has been the only possible way to make money off them for more then the past decade or so.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> September 6+7, the Chicago Options exchange handled about 470,000 put options (shorts) on United
> 
> September 10, American Airlines had about 450,000 puts...
> 
> if it's suspicious to you, why don't you take a few minutes and examine it?



So, that's 427,000 puts to 115,000 longs.  If you cut your losses on the longs at a reason level and let the shorts run, you'd make a _hell _of a lot of money.  The numbers get even crazier when you consider that they were options.

If you cut the longs at a 10% loss and let the shorts run for just 10 dollars, that would come out to 

It's funny that they held 95% of all the puts on United.  Not only that, but who held the puts on AA? 

And I didn't bother looking it up because, 1. I'm at work and can't invest that sort of time right now, 2. I don't care enough to look it up.

I'm not reaching a conclusion here.  I'm just talking about odds things that seemed to happen around the 9/11 event.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.


----------



## brogers (Sep 12, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> What would be the normal or average amount of puts on any given day?


 
much more than normal, but, similar (and even larger) amounts puts were made on other days during the year... it's included in the information I have posted.


----------



## danzik17 (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> If you don't believe it's legitimate, stop voting, stop paying attention, and stop complaining, since it's such a scam and conspiracy, there's obviously nothing you can do about it.  They are powerful enough to do all those things you mentioned, so surely "they" are more powerful than some punk on an internet message board, so you might as well quit bitching.
> 
> I certainly don't trust the government with much and am a fiscal libertarian, however, I mention the US Govt as a source of information on the attacks on 9/11, along with eyeballs, and professional engineers.  I feel as though I'm losing intelligence by just arguing for that which is clear to anyone with any understanding of the events...  I believe the saying is.. "Don't argue with a fool, because those who are watching may not be able to tell the difference between."  So think what you will, people who buy into the conspiracy BS are beyond reasoning.
> 
> I find it funny you would use the word "sheep" considering you sound identical to the "sheep" led by the MoveOn.org/DailyKos shepherd.



Voting is the only way for the average citizen to voice his or her opinion in who represents us in government.  It is incredibly ignorant of you to even suggest not voting as an option, especially with one of the most important presidential elections in recent history coming up.

"Quit bitching?."  Oh I'm sorry, I should just let the rights of citizens of the United States be violates and remain silent.  It is people like YOU that are the reason the country is in this state.  You have done nothing to oppose this.

Not only that, you have not proved in any measure that what YOU are saying has real credibility compared to what any of us are saying.  I have never claimed that a plane didn't hit or that it was bombed.  I AM claiming that I believe certain people had advance knowledge of this plan and did nothing to prevent it, knowing that it would give us the perfect pretext to go to war.  There will never be a conclusive report so that we know exactly what happened that day, so don't even try and claim that you are "more" right than someone with a different theory.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 12, 2007)

brogers said:


> much more than normal, but, similar (and even larger) amounts puts were made on other days during the year... it's included in the information I have posted.



 I see (patent violation ... sorry min0) ... and the ones over the last few weeks are able to be explained the same way?


----------



## brogers (Sep 12, 2007)

danzik17 said:


> Voting is the only way for the average citizen to voice his or her opinion in who represents us in government. It is incredibly ignorant of you to even suggest not voting as an option, especially with one of the most important presidential elections in recent history coming up.
> 
> "Quit bitching?." Oh I'm sorry, I should just let the rights of citizens of the United States be violates and remain silent. It is people like YOU that are the reason the country is in this state. You have done nothing to oppose this.
> 
> Not only that, you have not proved in any measure that what YOU are saying has real credibility compared to what any of us are saying. I have never claimed that a plane didn't hit or that it was bombed. I AM claiming that I believe certain people had advance knowledge of this plan and did nothing to prevent it, knowing that it would give us the perfect pretext to go to war. There will never be a conclusive report so that we know exactly what happened that day, so don't even try and claim that you are "more" right than someone with a different theory.


 
You made a post essentially calling me a "sheep" for "trusting the government" because I said the government (through the 9/11 commission, the FBI, the CIA, etc, etc, etc) provided information to show what happened on 9/11, along with plenty of other independent sources, and BigDyl chooses to ignore this, with preference for his conspiracy videos. You clearly indicated that I would be foolish to trust the government. Since I can't trust the government to not abduct and torture me, hold me forever without charges, build internment camps in the desert, and "the list goes on,"  I certainly should have absolutely no faith in the election system, and not waste my time with it.


----------



## danzik17 (Sep 12, 2007)

bigss75 said:


> 5. There isnt a bigger contracting company that could even handle the iraq job
> 6. I don't understand why we should cottle these terrorists, the [SIZE=-1]Geneva Convention was written for this type war.
> 7.Clinton left with 6 trillion dollars (with the .com boom you'd imagine it would be alot less) its around  9 now so you can't blame it all on Big Bush
> 
> ...



Congressman Jim McDermott - Representing Washington State's 7th Congressional District - Speeches
Members of Congress and scholars already acknowledge the framework is in place, and there have been several reports of guarded prison camps that have no prisoners.  2+2=?


----------



## danzik17 (Sep 12, 2007)

Obviously you have never heard of the Diebold scandal, or of the "lost" ballots from out of state citizens in lets say, Florida?  Where GWB's brother just happened to be governor?

Call me cynical if you want, I don't really care.  There have been far too many lies and coincidences for me to ever take anything this administration says at face value, and that includes their explanations of 9/11.


----------



## brogers (Sep 12, 2007)

danzik17 said:


> Obviously you have never heard of the Diebold scandal, or of the "lost" ballots from out of state citizens in lets say, Florida? Where GWB's brother just happened to be governor?
> 
> Call me cynical if you want, I don't really care. There have been far too many lies and coincidences for me to ever take anything this administration says at face value, and that includes their explanations of 9/11.


 
You're reinforcing my point that you shouldn't bother voting and should stop complaining since you know Dick Cheney, through DieBold, is just going to steal your vote anyway.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 12, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> I'm a loser for posting a video that you don't want to see or think about?  I'm a loser because your an ignorant facist who can't think for themselves?  Oh, ok.



no, but posting this didn't help your case



BigDyl said:


> Actually, you don't know shit about any of the theories sorrounding 911, there are hours and hours of documentaries that provide alot of empircal evidence about alot of very strange occurances.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 12, 2007)

busyLivin said:


> no, for posting this



I think that you're glossing over the very important fact that he referred to you as "themselves".


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 12, 2007)

danzik17 said:


> Call me cynical if you want, I don't really care.  .



Cynical.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 12, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I think that you're glossing over the very important fact that he referred to you as "themselves".



i did miss that...


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 13, 2007)

brogers said:


> If you don't believe it's legitimate, stop voting, stop paying attention, and stop complaining, since it's such a scam and conspiracy, there's obviously nothing you can do about it.  They are powerful enough to do all those things you mentioned, so surely "they" are more powerful than some punk on an internet message board, so you might as well quit bitching.
> 
> I certainly don't trust the government with much and am a fiscal libertarian, however, I mention the US Govt as a source of information on the attacks on 9/11, along with eyeballs, and professional engineers.  I feel as though I'm losing intelligence by just arguing for that which is clear to anyone with any understanding of the events...  I believe the saying is.. "Don't argue with a fool, because those who are watching may not be able to tell the difference between."  So think what you will, people who buy into the conspiracy BS are beyond reasoning.
> 
> I find it funny you would use the word "sheep" considering you sound identical to the "sheep" led by the MoveOn.org/DailyKos shepherd.



Explain to me how engineers determined that Tower 7, which was not hit by a plane would collapse in the same fashion as a demolished building, at literally free fall speed.  Add to this the fact that most of the jet fuel was burned off during impact, and it doesn't leave much jet fuel to "melt" the steel inside of tower 7 considering jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the titanium steel alloy reinforced support structure of the building.  Additionally this was the first time in history that 3 buildings collapsed due to fire.  Watch any of the videos of tower 1 and tower 2 and tell me you don't see plumes of smoke burst from the tower 4-5 stories below as the tower falls.

Actually there is too much too post and not enough time.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Explain to me how engineers determined that Tower 7, which was not hit by a plane would collapse in the same fashion as a demolished building, at literally free fall speed.  Add to this the fact that most of the jet fuel was burned off during impact, and it doesn't leave much jet fuel to "melt" the steel inside of tower 7 considering jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the titanium steel alloy reinforced support structure of the building.  Additionally this was the first time in history that 3 buildings collapsed due to fire.  Watch any of the videos of tower 1 and tower 2 and tell me you don't see plumes of smoke burst from the tower 4-5 stories below as the tower falls.
> 
> Actually there is too much too post and not enough time.



BigDyl has a point.  You really should watch the video (I forget the name) that covers the falling of the towers on 9/11.  It's not conclusive, but the issue also isn't as clear cut as you may think it is.

Do I think the government played a hand in it?  No, but I don't think that all the facts are really clear.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 13, 2007)

You don't have to believe the government had anything to do with it to believe that something else happened.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> You don't have to believe the government had anything to do with it to believe that something else happened.



Which is was I was alluding to.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 13, 2007)

YouTube Video
















YouTube Video


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 13, 2007)

*Americans are Drama Queens*

3,000 is nothing.

Nothing.


Over 3 million Vietnamese killed in 45 years, and only 58,000 Americans killed in 7 years, from 1965 to 1973.

There should not be a memorial for Americans killed in Vietnam.

They supported the oppressive and brutal South Vietnamese government.

If they get killed - tough luck.

They chose to go there.

The same goes for Iraq - which was the false war - only because of 9/11.


9/11 was a symbolic strike.

Nothing more; nothing less.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> *Americans are Drama Queens*
> 
> 3,000 is nothing.
> 
> Nothing.



Nice job sounding like a Muslim.




Big Smoothy said:


> Over 3 million Vietnamese killed in 45 years, and only 58,000 Americans killed in 7 years, from 1965 to 1973.
> 
> There should not be a memorial for Americans killed in Vietnam.
> 
> ...



Are you too much a dumb shit to understand the difference between soldiers and civilians?

I'm also willing to bet that you'd be singing a different tune if it was your mother, father, or sibling that died in those towers.

But this is the sort of shit that I'd expect from you.



Mr_Snafu said:


> Of course not.
> 
> But there won't be a draft.
> 
> ...


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 13, 2007)

^ I have said it before and will say it again.

The death in the attacks are horrible.

I am talking about statistics.

yes, 3K is nothing.

And again, no there won't be a draft.

Gen. Abrams made sure of that 30 years ago.


And yes, I still support the insurgent Sunnis.  I am still rooting for them.

And the troops are still idiots.  

See: the Carter Doctrine of 1980, Mossadegh 1953, support for the Saud Family, Hosnei Mubarrakh, and now Qaddaffi.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Nice job sounding like a Muslim.



I don't like Muslims.

Not at all.

I won't even say what I think about them on a public web forum.


Xtians, and Jews are right behind the Muzzies.


Wipe them all out.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> ^ I have said it before and will say it again.
> 
> The death in the attacks are horrible.
> 
> ...



The mossadegh operation was actually CIA's first big job.  It was instigated by the british, however, so you can't blame the US entirely.  While the shah was installed in place of democratically elected mossadegh, I agree Iran could have become a democracy and would be one today if it wasn't for the coup.  Again, however, I think the British are more to blame than the US is.  They would have invaded if we agreed to it.


----------



## brogers (Sep 13, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Explain to me how engineers determined that Tower 7, which was not hit by a plane would collapse in the same fashion as a demolished building, at literally free fall speed. Add to this the fact that most of the jet fuel was burned off during impact, and it doesn't leave much jet fuel to "melt" the steel inside of tower 7 considering jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the titanium steel alloy reinforced support structure of the building. Additionally this was the first time in history that 3 buildings collapsed due to fire. Watch any of the videos of tower 1 and tower 2 and tell me you don't see plumes of smoke burst from the tower 4-5 stories below as the tower falls.
> 
> Actually there is too much too post and not enough time.


 
And now you reveal your lack of knowledge about buildings and materials.  Thanks.

Steel doesn't melt at temperatures that would be reached by fires.  True!  Unfortunantly, it does lose about half of it's strength in those same fires!  Might have a small impact on the structural integrity, no? 

Tower 7 didn't have a plane fly into it, just the worlds tallest building fell down next to it, that's all.  Of course, a normal person might expect some structural damage to be done.  The video you posted is so clever, because it's taken from the north side, so the building looks fine.  I wonder what the south side looks like where the damage was? Oh yeah, it looks pretty messed up.  Apparently, the 8th grader who made the internet video that convinced you of "9/11 troof" is better at misleading people than good ol' GWB.  Computer models put together by engineers (not the typical acne-covered-teenager source you prefer, I know) show how and why the towers fell.  Dick Cheney must have had a gun to their heads forcing them to do it though.

You're the one who is being fooled.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 13, 2007)

*^^* You are a well-read man, BigDyl and I respect that. (I hope you didn't Wiki.)

The BP company got pissed off, and then the Americans came in.

In the end....it's the Americans who did the deed.


----------



## brogers (Sep 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Nice job sounding like a Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

It all makes sense now.  I didn't realize that this scumbag was that scumbag.  I just wish he'd share his views on our soldiers and veterans with 1) them, 2) their familes, 3) any proud American, and do so in person.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2007)

brogers said:


> It all makes sense now.  I didn't realize that this scumbag was that scumbag.  I just wish he'd share his views on our soldiers and veterans with 1) them, 2) their familes, 3) any proud American, and do so in person.




Yep, Big Smoothy is in fact Mr_Snafu.  And yes, I'd like to see him do that, too.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 13, 2007)

brogers said:


> And now you reveal your lack of knowledge about buildings and materials.  Thanks.
> 
> Steel doesn't melt at temperatures that would be reached by fires.  True!  Unfortunantly, it does lose about half of it's strength in those same fires!  Might have a small impact on the structural integrity, no?
> 
> ...


Did you catch the one interview with the guy that engineered the towers?  He explained that the buildings were designed to deal with exactly this kind of event.  He explained that the size of the plane, the fuel type, and the structure of the build were all factored in to the building design.

My issues with the US government's report are the lies found to be intractable by the timeline of the 9/11 event as a whole causing the 9/11 commission to be shown as liars.  If these people are reporting through a then Rumsfeld ran department ... the entire White House is indicted for the falsification.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Yep, Big Smoothy is in fact Mr_Snafu.  And yes, I'd like to see him do that, too.


Never happen ...


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 13, 2007)

brogers said:


> And now you reveal your lack of knowledge about buildings and materials.  Thanks.
> 
> Steel doesn't melt at temperatures that would be reached by fires.  True!  Unfortunantly, it does lose about half of it's strength in those same fires!  Might have a small impact on the structural integrity, no?
> 
> ...





I'll admit I'm not an expert on the exact steel that was used, however they didn't build the building with "regular steel," I'm pretty sure it was high comercial grade and possibly alloyed with titanium.  


This doesn't look like a structural collapse to me, does it to you?








"In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure."


"No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple."


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Sep 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I don't like Muslims.
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> ...



People like you concern me greatly.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> This doesn't look like a structural collapse to me, does it to you?
> 
> 
> "No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple."



That's the problem that I have with it.  Both of the towers were hit from one side, which you'd think would cause more damage on that side (asymmetrical damage), but the towers fell down neatly (symmetrically).

But, in all fairness, no building had even had a jet loaded with volatile jet fuel fly into it.  Very often, life doesn't care to follow man-made models.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2007)

FishOrCutBait said:


> People like you concern me greatly.



Do you have any idea what a "Xtian" is?  Is that retard for Christian?


----------



## brogers (Sep 13, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> I'll admit I'm not an expert on the exact steel that was used, however they didn't build the building with "regular steel," I'm pretty sure it was high comercial grade and possibly alloyed with titanium.


 
So you know as much about steel as my 12 year old cousin does.  Stop talking about subjects you admit you know nothing about.  "I'm pretty sure it was high commercial grade and possibly alloyed with titanium" well, I'm glad we now know what you think it is.  Unfortunantly, steel still loses strength in high temperatures, no matter how many "HIGH GRADE COMMERICIAL STEEL" stickers you think the fabricator stuck on it.

I can't even see the video posted, but I'm done trying to explain it to a child.  You don't know about construction, engineering, or materials.  I highly doubt you have even the slighest clue about unique design/construction techniques used in those structures either, which contributed to their collapse.  You seek out and choose to find information that suits your taste, not the truth.  

Popular Mechanics did a huge "Claims vs Facts" piece on the 9/11 attacks because so many tards out there are so easily misled by videos on youtube.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2007)

brogers said:


> So you know as much about steel as my 12 year old cousin does.  Stop talking about subjects you admit you know nothing about.  "I'm pretty sure it was high commercial grade and possibly alloyed with titanium" well, I'm glad we now know what you think it is.  Unfortunantly, steel still loses strength in high temperatures, no matter how many "HIGH GRADE COMMERICIAL STEEL" stickers you think the fabricator stuck on it.
> 
> I can't even see the video posted, but I'm done trying to explain it to a child.  You don't know about construction, engineering, or materials.  I highly doubt you have even the slighest clue about unique design/construction techniques used in those structures either, which contributed to their collapse.  You seek out and choose to find information that suits your taste, not the truth.
> 
> Popular Mechanics did a huge "Claims vs Facts" piece on the 9/11 attacks because so many tards out there are so easily misled by videos on youtube.



Here's something that's interesting. I watched a video on the Discovery channel 5 years ago about house fires.  One of the things that I remember was the complaint from firefighters that modern synthetic materials burn much hotter than natural occurring materials.  They said those materials can burn well over 2000 degrees. Synthetics also tend to burn for longer periods of time.  I tried to look it up on Google, but I got too many unrelated results.

I just looked up the melting point of steel.  Quote: "Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)."

Jet fuel aside, burning synthetics, especially in an enclosed space, can hit temperatures high enough to melt metal.  What happens when you add the jet fuel into the equation?

Just some food for thought.


----------



## goob (Sep 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I don't like Muslims.
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> ...


 
Just a bit extreme to say the least.

But, it must be said, that the US's unquestioning support of Israel has been a major catalyst for middle east terror groups.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2007)

goob said:


> But, it must be said, that the US's unquestioning support of Israel has been a major catalyst for middle east terror groups.



It also must be said that those motherfuckers don't need a reason to kill.


----------



## goob (Sep 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> It also must be said that those motherfuckers don't need a reason to kill.


 
Amen.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 13, 2007)

So who here has actually sat through the entire 1:29 of loose change?  I am right now.  Things that make ya go ...   ... hmmmmm wtf?!?!? will be posted here for our collective and interactive flaming of each other.  Gloves off and balls out responses are likely after a few posts.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Here's something that's interesting. I watched a video on the Discovery channel 5 years ago about house fires.  One of the things that I remember was the complaint from firefighters that modern synthetic materials burn much hotter than natural occurring materials.  They said those materials can burn well over 2000 degrees. Synthetics also tend to burn for longer periods of time.  I tried to look it up on Google, but I got too many unrelated results.
> 
> I just looked up the melting point of steel.  Quote: "Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)."
> 
> ...


But steel doesn't have to reach melting point to start weakening, it just needs to get hot and Jet Fuel can reach almost 1800°F, thats enough to ruin the structural integrity.  And as far as it looking like a controlled demolition, what was it supposed to look like, a tree falling over on it's side?  The damage started from the top and as the several stories worth of weight came crashing through the balance of integrity on all 4 corners of the building kept it synchronized, thats how the buildings are designed.  Each side of the building has the same strength so that if the building does need to come down it can be done in an orderly fashion...

Even though I don't support Bush using this for the wrong reasons, I really don't think he nor any one in our gov. had a hand in it.  I do believe that they could have prevented it though if they had taken their jobs more seriously in the month's prior....


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 13, 2007)

... WTF?!?!?

I get really interested that Charles Burlingame ... the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon ... in 1989 participates in a strategic exercise on defending the Pentagon against just such a plane crash.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 13, 2007)

bigss75 said:


> 5. There isnt a bigger contracting company that could even handle the iraq job
> 6. I don't understand why we should cottle these terrorists, the [SIZE=-1]Geneva Convention was written for this type war.
> * 7.Clinton left with 6 *[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]*trillion dollar*[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]*s (with the .com boom you'd imagine it would be alot less) its around 9 now so you can't blame it all on Big Bush*
> 
> ...


Lol bigss I just noticed you posted that.  Fact: in 2000 there was a *$250 billion dollar* *SURPLUS* ... not a deficit.  Yes BushCo is responsible for all of that [SIZE=-1]*  9 *[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]*trillion dollar *[/SIZE]deficit we now have.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 13, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> So who here has actually sat through the entire 1:29 of loose change?  I am right now.  Things that make ya go ...   ... hmmmmm wtf?!?!? will be posted here for our collective and interactive flaming of each other.  Gloves off and balls out responses are likely after a few posts.



I doubt anyone but myself has watched it.  I'd like to see brogers debunk every point the movie brings up.  So far, if brogers is correct, he's debunked about .01% of the actual material the movie contains.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> I doubt anyone but myself has watched it.  I'd like to see brogers debunk every point the movie brings up.  So far, if brogers is correct, he's debunked about .01% of the actual material the movie contains.



Apparently, many other people have already debunked it.  I also think that there's another movie that debunks.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 13, 2007)

brogers said:


> I just wish he'd share his views on our soldiers and veterans with 1) them, 2) their familes, 3) any proud American, and do so in person.



I already have.

They generally don't agree.

I'm not surprised.

They often pretend to be "victims."  "We're just doing our job."


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I already have.



Liar.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Liar.



Anyone who knows me in person knows I support the Sunnis blocking Al-maliki, Al-hakim and the Dawa party.

I've always said the Americans are the bad guys and that I support the insurgents.

Does anyone really care?  Not really.  

Why should they?

Everyone has a right to an opinion.


Who cares, if someone supports the Shiites, or another wants the Sunnis to block the government?

It's kind of like watching this next round of (boring) elections.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> Anyone who knows me



...must not have family in the military or be a US citizen.

I'm betting the times that you "told your opinion", it was to women or guys much smaller than yourself.

Yeah, go ahead and say that isn't so.  By all means, do drop by Utah and I'll take you to a bar where the National Guard (or the Air Force, your choice) hang out and give you the chance to prove me wrong.

Pussy.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> ...must not have family in the military or be a US citizen.
> 
> I'm betting the times that you "told your opinion", it was to women or guys much smaller than yourself.
> 
> ...



I was born and raised in the U.S. and am a U.S. citizen.  I vote in all elections.  I like to read about U.S. history also.

I have family that are ex-military.

Some friends I grew up with also, that I keep in touch with.

Now, in a bar near a base, I think someone would be angry or throw a punch perhaps.  I don't talk about politics in bars, no matter where I am.  I also don't talk about politics, race, or relgion with people I don't know very well.

People's minds are made up, and critical thinking and polite debate goes out the window too fast.

Remember: my focus on on the issues.  Emotions and anger should not come into play.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Sep 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I don't like Muslims.
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> ...



There is nothing ok about what you just said.

How can you justify this?

I can't believe somebody would support such an ignorantly hateful idea.

I would be burned at the stake for saying:



I dont like atheists. 

Not at all.

I won't even say what I think about them on a public web forum.

While we're at it, Democrats, Niggers, and Agnostics too.

Wipe em all out.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 13, 2007)

FishOrCutBait said:


> There is nothing ok about what you just said.
> 
> How can you justify this?



I don't like organized religion.

Xtian = Christian

Without the word christ.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Sep 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I don't like organized religion.
> 
> Xtian = Christian
> 
> Without the word christ.



Yeah I got it. I'm not stupid as you'd like to believe.

You didn't say you don't like organized religion,

You said you don't like people of religions that are organized, you backpeddling liar.

You didn't say "I dont like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam",

You said wipe out the practitioners of those religions.

I don't like organized religion either, I've been burned by it too many times, and my faith has taken more hits from it and my life has lost too much from it to justify what little gains I receive from it. I'd rather read and worship in the privacy of my own home like Christ himself advised than be around people who need organized social gathering places to feel whole.

But that doesn't mean I hate the religion, people's actions make something bad, the thing itself never does anything wrong. People of my religion have done many horrible things; People have raped, stolen, murdered, and committed many more atrocities that I shudder to imagine under the flag of my God. 

The same can be said of Islam. Or of nearly anything which people give power.

I hate what you have to say, and it frightens me to think that your malevolent opinions might influence somebody to harm another human being.

You concern me greatly. The ease which you suggest that people be murdered because of what they believe hearkens to men such as Hitler. 

I can only hope your charisma and influence are as lacking as your point of view.


----------



## bigss75 (Sep 13, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Fact: in 2000 there was a *$250 billion dollar* *SURPLUS* ... not a deficit.



We haven't been outta the red since 1940's the budget deficit vs. national debt are two different things, and as much as everyone wants to blame Bush you can't on that


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 13, 2007)

FishOrCutBait said:


> Yeah I got it. I'm not stupid as you'd like to believe.
> 
> You didn't say you don't like organized religion,
> 
> You said you don't like people of religions that are organized, you backpeddling liar.



It's not backpedalling.  It's one and the same.  Both statements above are my general opinions, but I don't automatically apply them to individuals.  I view the organized religious movements as a whole:

The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Slavery, Colonization of many countries - were in the name of religion.



> People have raped, stolen, murdered, and committed many more atrocities that I shudder to imagine under the flag of my God.



Well, you must have a pretty bad god, then.




> I hate what you have to say, and it frightens me to think that your malevolent opinions might influence somebody to harm another human being.
> 
> You concern me greatly. The ease which you suggest that people be murdered because of what they believe hearkens to men such as Hitler.



Wipe out does not mean kill or murder.

You over-dramatizing, again.  

Invoking the name of Hitler?  You're really reaching, aren't you?


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Sep 13, 2007)

When somebody says they want to wipe out people of a persuasion that I belong to, I get worried.

Tell me then, Mr. Euphemism, what EXACTLY does "wipe out" mean?

18.wipe out, 
a.to destroy completely; demolish: The entire city was wiped out.    
b.Informal. to murder; kill: They wiped him out to keep him from testifying

Im pretty sure this is the only definition thats applicable.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 13, 2007)

FishOrCutBait said:


> When somebody says they want to wipe out people of a persuasion that I belong to, I get worried.
> 
> Tell me then, Mr. Euphemism, what EXACTLY does "wipe out" mean?
> 
> ...



That was not my intent, but I will admit using this word, even though I should have used another word and words to convey the meaning of that post.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Sep 13, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> That was not my intent, but I will admit using this word, even though I should have used another word and words to convey the meaning of that post.



Thank you for your explanation.

I understood what you said to mean that you wished to exterminate people of that religion.

If you wish to abolish religion, so be it, 

that is your desire.

I appreciate you clarifying your meaning, I have nothing more to say


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 14, 2007)

bigss75 said:


> We haven't been outta the red since 1940's the budget deficit vs. national debt are two different things, and as much as everyone wants to blame Bush you can't on that


Practice your tap dancing elsewhere.  You just attempted to hoist the Federal budget deficit created by BushCo policies off on the democrats that came before them and that is just utter Republican rubbish.  He came into office with a budget surplus and is leaving with this deficit that's not going to go away in my lifetime.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Apparently, many other people have already debunked it.  I also think that there's another movie that debunks.


So far nobody credible to a neutral party has debunked Loose Change that I am able to find.  Pop Mechanics is a Hearst publication and as such is nothing even close to a credible entity, yet they still had  no explanation other than rhetoric and "We talked to so and so" about things from loose change that I found rather huge.  I'm going to avid the building collapses for now just because the engineering reports are in serious conflict and I'm not an engineer.  I'll peck away and see where that all goes.  Some other stark questions do come up that cannot be fuzzed up with a slide rule.

1.) Where is the remains of the aircraft that plowed into the Pentagon?  

2.) How could that plane be vaporized and yet yield DNA for the passengers within it?  Those two cannot both happen.  The plan cannot experience such a complete burst of energy to be so completely destroyed AND and leave enough in the ashes (which were also not found) to allow for a DNA sample.

3.) Where are the hard parts that of the aircraft that slammed through the several Pentagon walls?  If these supposedly huge engine parts do exist then why is this stuff not open for public and FAA inspection?

4.) Where are the remains of flight 93?

These are just a few of the things that nag at me.  I can take a neutral stance on this and work through the answers if they are there.  I would happily accept that it was not an inside job if the logical answers support that conclusion, but logic ... not rhetoric ... has to be in the details.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 14, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> It's not backpedalling.  It's one and the same.  Both statements above are my general opinions, but I don't automatically apply them to individuals.  I view the organized religious movements as a whole:
> 
> The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Slavery, Colonization of many countries - were in the name of religion.
> 
> ...


Smoothy when Fish is done with you I wold have a word if you are still intact and available.


----------



## PreMier (Sep 14, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> So far nobody credible to a neutral party has debunked Loose Change that I am able to find.  Pop Mechanics is a Hearst publication and as such is nothing even close to a credible entity, yet they still had  no explanation other than rhetoric and "We talked to so and so" about things from loose change that I found rather huge.  I'm going to avid the building collapses for now just because the engineering reports are in serious conflict and I'm not an engineer.  I'll peck away and see where that all goes.  Some other stark questions do come up that cannot be fuzzed up with a slide rule.
> 
> 1.) Where is the remains of the aircraft that plowed into the Pentagon?
> 
> ...



do you think it was a missile?


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Sep 14, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> I doubt anyone but myself has watched it. I'd like to see brogers debunk every point the movie brings up. So far, if brogers is correct, he's debunked about .01% of the actual material the movie contains.


 
Weren't the so called squibs simply all the pressure of the pancaking floors blowing out the smoke/materials/shit out of the windows on floors below them?


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 14, 2007)

Goodfella9783 said:


> Weren't the so called squibs simply all the pressure of the pancaking floors blowing out the smoke/materials/shit out of the windows on floors below them?



There is a difference between a preassure explosion, and a explosion that shorts out horizontally 100's of feet.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Apparently, many other people have already debunked it.  I also think that there's another movie that debunks.



It's actually funny when you think about it.  I hope my suspicions are wrong.  Yet people get so upset about it, like they believe it and are afraid to admit the truth.  Now, if they were so confident in the official explaination, would they really get so upset, and not be able to back their claims up? (with the exception of some weak observations)


So far I have yet to a see an hour and a half documentary that debunks the hour and a half loose change documentary.  You have tons of eye witnesses in the bottom of the tower who claimed to hear multiple explosions.  Alot of witnesses that heard the mutiple explosions.  There are just as many skeptical experts.  And think about it, if the conspiracy is true, why wouldn't there be alot of official "experts" who deny it?  They would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Sep 14, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> There is a difference between a preassure explosion, and a explosion that shorts out horizontally 100's of feet.


 
So you believe that a group of people wired both towers without anyone in the towers realizing it? That would mean there would be obvious equipment throughout the buildings and from what I hear it's a fuckin pretty extensive process....how would no one know nothing about the methods used and not come forward?


----------



## tucker01 (Sep 14, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> There is a difference between a preassure explosion, and a explosion that shorts out horizontally 100's of feet.



The squibs is a weak argument.  Not something I would bring up to support your position.

Sure there were some anomalies.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 14, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> The squibs is a weak argument.  Not something I would bring up to support your position.
> 
> Sure there were some anomalies.


The squibs theory is very weak.  People need to realize that as those upper floors fell air that was compressed shot down through elevator and ventilation shafts, those little blasts of air you see in the videos are just the pressure escaping from the easiest points of exit, possibly windows that desperate people had busted out, or just weak windows that failed before any others did...


----------



## DOMS (Sep 14, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I was born and raised in the U.S. and am a U.S. citizen.  I vote in all elections.  I like to read about U.S. history also.
> 
> I have family that are ex-military.
> 
> Some friends I grew up with also, that I keep in touch with.



Bullshit.  You're lying.  Either about them or the fact that you tell what you really think.



Big Smoothy said:


> Now, in a bar near a base, I think someone would be angry or throw a punch perhaps.  I don't talk about politics in bars, no matter where I am.  I also don't talk about politics, race, or relgion with people I don't know very well.
> 
> People's minds are made up, and critical thinking and polite debate goes out the window too fast.
> 
> Remember: my focus on on the issues.  Emotions and anger should not come into play.



A "few punches"?  More bullshit. If you walked into a bar a told a bunch of soldiers that you hoped that they die, they're going to do a lot more than throw a few punches.  They'd beat the shit out of you.

You really are delusional.

"Minds are made up"?  You're talking about the deaths of American soldiers.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 14, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> So far nobody credible to a neutral party has debunked Loose Change that I am able to find.



You need to look harder.  There are plenty out there.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 14, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> It's actually funny when you think about it.  I hope my suspicions are wrong.  Yet people get so upset about it, like they believe it and are afraid to admit the truth.  Now, if they were so confident in the official explaination, would they really get so upset, and not be able to back their claims up? (with the exception of some weak observations)



Who wants to think that their government lied to them about something so horrific?  Besides, most people (the world over) are sheeple.  They don't want to know the "truth" of things.  They want explanations that fit into their world view.



BigDyl said:


> So far I have yet to a see an hour and a half documentary that debunks the hour and a half loose change documentary.  You have tons of eye witnesses in the bottom of the tower who claimed to hear multiple explosions.  Alot of witnesses that heard the mutiple explosions.  There are just as many skeptical experts.  And think about it, if the conspiracy is true, why wouldn't there be alot of official "experts" who deny it?  They would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.



Like I told BoneCrusher, you need to look around.  There are experts that have spoken out against that theory.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 14, 2007)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You need to look harder.  There are plenty out there.


I'm sifting through the billion sites and vid's but all I'm finding is rhetoric and anecdotal bullshit.  Smart ass remarks, obvious and easily made ... yet useless in any attempt to truly debunk the issues that stand out in my mind are very popular amongst that crowd.  I'm still looking, but so far the 3 hour long vid' at Screw Loose Change video has seemed to hold the most promise.  It's full of sarcasm and very little actual substance but I'm only 25 minutes in so maybe these guys will out something ... hope so.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 14, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> I'm sifting through the billion sites and vid's but all I'm finding is rhetoric and anecdotal bullshit.  Smart ass remarks, obvious and easily made ... yet useless in any attempt to truly debunk the issues that stand out in my mind are very popular amongst that crowd.  I'm still looking, but so far the 3 hour long vid' at Screw Loose Change video has seemed to hold the most promise.  It's full of sarcasm and very little actual substance but I'm only 25 minutes in so maybe these guys will out something ... hope so.



I watched a video that did a good job of debunking quite a bit of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff.  I watched it on Google video and I don't remember the name.

Nonetheless, the neatness of the collapsing buildings still bothers me.

The one thing I don't think is worth anything is the idea that the government new it was going to happen because of the report on Osama that the CIA put out.  That was just one report among many.  Only hindsight makes it stand out.


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Sep 14, 2007)

I watched some of this program on the History Channel a couple weeks about conspiracies presented in Loose Change. There are interviews with the guys who made Loose Change, clips about their theories, and responses from experts. It was pretty good.

9/11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> A "few punches"?  More bullshit. If you walked into a bar a told a bunch of soldiers that you hoped that they die, they're going to do a lot more than throw a few punches.  They'd beat the shit out of you.



No.

If they are not in Iraq then I don't want anything to happen to them.

If they're stationed in the U.S. or Afghanistan, no problem by me.

Iraq: that's a different story.


Not only is it the Freedom of Speech, but the Freedom of Thought.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 14, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> No.
> 
> If they are not in Iraq then I don't want anything to happen to them.
> 
> ...



Again, you being a pussy.  The military has the same level of comradery that the police have.  You lay a hand on one of them and the rest will take it just as personally.  If you walked in and said "I'm only looking forward to the death of American soldiers in Iraq", they'd beat the shit out of you.

You clearly show that you have no real experience with the military.  That, or you're simply being a douche.



Big Smoothy said:


> Not only is it the Freedom of Speech, but the Freedom of Thought.



Yes, you also have the right to be a total ass.  Just like I have the freedom to utterly detest Internet pussies like you.


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Sep 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> The military has the same level of comradery that the police have. You lay a hand on one of them and the rest will take it just as personally.


----------



## HialeahChico305 (Sep 14, 2007)




----------



## Witmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> Anyone who knows me in person knows I support the Sunnis blocking Al-maliki, Al-hakim and the Dawa party.
> 
> I've always said the Americans are the bad guys and that I support the insurgents.
> 
> ...


Remind me again...

Are you Snafu?

This reeks of his twisted intellect.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 14, 2007)

Witmaster said:


> Remind me again...
> 
> Are you Snafu?
> 
> This reeks of his twisted intellect.



Yes, he is.


----------



## Witmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> No.
> 
> If they are not in Iraq then I don't want anything to happen to them.
> 
> ...


So let me get this straight.....

A soldier can deploy to Afghanistan and you wish him/her well; but let that same soldier get redeployed to Iraq and you now wish them death?

that's awesome...


----------



## Witmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Yes, he is.


Well I'll be in Iraq soon.  The main reason I've been off the board these past several weeks is due to all the training I've been going to.  I'm finally at a location where I have internet access so I can post a little more...

Snafu is certainly the exception to everything honorable and decent in this world.  Anyone who openly supports terrorism is morally bankrupt.


----------



## NordicNacho (Sep 14, 2007)

"Anyone who openly supports terrorism is morally bankrupt."  

Terror is all they have to fight with they don't have 500 billion a year to spend on a military to face the US head on.  We have bases throughout the Middle East how do you think that makes them feel.  People here freak out over NAFTA how would they feel if foreign military bases where all over the US?  With Saudi Military convoys driving down your street every day.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 14, 2007)

Witmaster said:


> Anyone who openly supports terrorism is morally bankrupt.



I agree.

The U.S. openly supports terrorism.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 14, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I agree.
> 
> The U.S. openly supports terrorism.



So, bitch, are you coming for a visit? I'll even drop you off at the bar.  And I'll take commemorative photos for free.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> So, bitch, are you coming for a visit? I'll even drop you off at the bar.  And I'll take commemorative photos for free.



I would be better for focus on the _issues_ and not call people names, insult them, and threaten violence.

The negative personal comments just go to show the lack of critical thinking and a lack of the ability to have a half-way mature discussion.


----------



## Witmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I agree.
> 
> The U.S. openly supports terrorism.


And so do you.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 14, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I would be better for focus on the _issues_ and not call people names, insult them, and threaten violence.



You said that you don't like American troops and hoped that they die.  I don't like you and hope you die. I'm just willing to put some work into it.



Big Smoothy said:


> The negative personal comments just go to show the lack of critical thinking and a lack of the ability to have a half-way mature discussion.



You're not worth it.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 14, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Yeah busy practices more restraint which is something I respect him for. Restraint is something I practice at everyday, and I am only good at some of the time.



Most of the time, but BigDyl can get me pretty worked up.


well, pretty much any liberal can


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> BigDyl has a point.



Impossible.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Yes, he is.



I should have known that it was Snafu. For a second there he was pissing me off, but no longer


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 14, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> I would be better for focus on the _issues_ and not call people names, insult them, and threaten violence.
> 
> The negative personal comments just go to show the lack of critical thinking and a lack of the ability to have a half-way mature discussion.


You brought this on yourself Snafu.  WTF did you think would happen in here when you cried out your support for the death of your fellow Americans in a thread posted to show respect for Americans that have died over 9/11?  You voted yourself off the island with that one.

I would be interested on why you believe US GI's should die for going to Iraq.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 14, 2007)

this name changing stuff is driving me crazy


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 14, 2007)

Witmaster said:


> And so do you.



Please explain.


----------



## Witmaster (Sep 15, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> Please explain.


Ok..this isn't rocket science.

An insurgent drives a car, loaded with 1000 pounds of explosive ordinance, and detonates it in a crowded market place killing 70 innocent civilians and one American soldier.

You applaud the insurgents efforts.

You're no better than the terrorists.

But then, we've had this conversation before.  I've absolutely no intention of changing your mind.  It's already warped beyond anyone's reach.

Suffice it to say I'm content to consider you an enemy.  It's all good.


----------



## AKIRA (Sep 15, 2007)

Big Smoothy's comments are so fucked up, that I really feel that Ive gotta be mistaking him somehow.


----------



## cjm (Sep 15, 2007)

There are no winners in wars.

The terrorist attacks on the Twin towers was one of the most horrific events 
ever.
Of course there are tragedies happening around our planet.
The 9/11 events are a turning point in our societies, therefore recieve alot of press.
The horror of the 9/11 events affected us here in the UK, and our thoughts and prayers went out to those in the USA.
What stood out also, was the incredible way New York city, infact the whole of the US, pulled together, and rose in the face of adversity.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 15, 2007)

The progressive viewpoint is to get the US soldiers out of Iraq to save them, and because that's the best way to support them.

Then send in UN peacekeepers to take over.  The country is like a stirred up bee's nest, and the last estimate I've read of civilian deaths is close to 1 million.  So it couldn't get any worse with UN peacekeeping forces, and possibly swallow some pride, and get some help from saudi arabia, and iran.  Make sure they aren't al queada, however.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 15, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> The progressive viewpoint is to get the US soldiers out of Iraq to save them, and because that's the best way to support them.
> 
> Then send in UN peacekeepers to take over.  The country is like a stirred up bee's nest, and the last estimate I've read of civilian deaths is close to 1 million.  So it couldn't get any worse with UN peacekeeping forces, and possibly swallow some pride, and get some help from saudi arabia, and iran.  Make sure they aren't al queada, however.



It has absolutely nothing to do with swallowing pride. 

Get help from Iran?  You have got to be kidding.. seriously.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 15, 2007)

busyLivin said:


> Get help from Iran?  You have got to be kidding.. seriously.



No shit.  Iran is one of the countries that were fighting, through the insurgents that they supply and field in Iraq.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 16, 2007)

DOMS said:


> No shit.  Iran is one of the countries that were fighting, through the insurgents that they supply and field in Iraq.



The U.S. is NOT fighting Iran.

However, Iran is aiding _some Shiite_ militant groups that the U.S. is both supporting but also defending against.

Do we see the contradiction?

The al-Maliki and al-Hakim government that the American are supporting are _linked_ to Iran.

This government will be heavily allied with Iran and also Hezbollah. 


Comments?  Opinions?


----------



## DOMS (Sep 16, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> Comments?  Opinions?



Sure: you're an ass and go fuck yourself.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Sep 16, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> The U.S. is NOT fighting Iran.
> Comments?  Opinions?


I want to point out that there is supposedly great political tension between the US and Iran because of their actions/inactions as of late.

Im not an expert, however, I have heard that from multiple people, for multiple reasons.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 16, 2007)

Allen Greenspan just admitted the war on iraq was about oil.  He's a friggin' reaganite.  Additionally the former chairman believes the civilian death count in Iraq is around 1 million, making it higher than the Rwanda genocide.  

On a side note it looks like the U.S. is taking steps to build up the fear in the nation in preparation for an attack on Iran.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 16, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Allen Greenspan just admitted the war on iraq was about oil.  He's a friggin' reaganite.  Additionally the former chairman believes the civilian death count in Iraq is around 1 million, making it higher than the Rwanda genocide.



Link?



BigDyl said:


> On a side note it looks like the U.S. is taking steps to build up the fear in the nation in preparation for an attack on Iran.



   Hopefully, we'll just do the "bomb the shit out of them and then go home" thing, this time.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 16, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully, we'll just do the "bomb the shit out of them and then go home" thing, this time.



Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m | World | The Observer


----------



## DOMS (Sep 16, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m | World | The Observer



It's plausible, but I'll wait to read about it somewhere other than The Guardian, which is just this side of tabloid.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 16, 2007)

The difficult part about  this is that all the people  that were gung-ho about their support of the invasion Iraq are now going to have to deal with the results of their support.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 16, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> The difficult part about  this is that all the people  that were gung-ho about their support of the invasion Iraq are now going to have to deal with the results of their support.



Not true.  A lot of people, myself included, supported the war.  But not the way that Bush fucked it up.

If were had simply bombed the shit out of it, put someone in power very quickly, and then left, the number of dead Americans and the money spent would be a fraction of what it is now.

Bush had to fuck it up by trying to bring democracy to a people that are unfit to live that way.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 16, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> The difficult part about  this is that all the people  that were gung-ho about their support of the invasion Iraq are now going to have to deal with the results of their support.



Not really.  Must people just trusted the mainstrem media for their information, never seeking an alternate source.  It's odd that someone would trust the mainstream over alternative press considering the mainstream media performs to serve on behalf of the most powerful interests, namely the ones that control and finance them.  The alternative press on the other hand seems to be a bit more "free" with their thought.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 16, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Not true.  A lot of people, myself included, supported the war.  But not the way that Bush fucked it up.
> 
> If were had simply bombed the shit out of it, put someone in power very quickly, and then left, the number of dead Americans and the money spent would be a fraction of what it is now.
> 
> Bush had to fuck it up by trying to bring democracy to a people that are unfit to live that way.


I *never* did support this effort.  ALL the results we have endeavored to "achieved" could have been equally well attempted while we were only in Assghanistan.  We all see that the terroristic minded mo's ran over there to fight in Iraq.  These hate America freakos came from Saudi, Syria, Iran, Assghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, as well as every other Islamofascist region of the world.  That is in itself a tremendous thing.  Collect all the ragheads that wanna attack us and call them onto a battlefield then have at it where they can't beat us, but they *can* die trying.  My point is that these rectal droppings would have been equally content to die in Assghanistan as in Iraq.  The huge difference is we would not have the blood of so many hundreds of thousands of non-Islmofascists on our hands.  

I'm not Monday morning quarter backing here either.  This is the stance I've held from day one.

The wealth generated by this invasion has all gone to the very people that ran it and are now about to wander off into the sunset unscathed ... BushCo.  I still stand by what I said from the beginning ... this was never about fighting terrorism but about geopolitical control of Iraq and its oil resources for the benefit of a few.  

If this was ever about a complete and total annihilation of the terrorists alleged to be behind 9/11 then it could have all been done and over two years ago.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 16, 2007)

FishOrCutBait said:


> I want to point out that there is supposedly great political tension between the US and Iran because of their actions/inactions as of late.
> 
> Im not an expert, however, I have heard that from multiple people, for multiple reasons.



Yes, there is tension between the U.S. and Iran, for Iran's support of the Shiite militias and production and training of EFPs.

Also, the government of KSA (Saudi Arabia) have factually been linked to supporting Sunni insurgents.

The U.S. is caught between a sandwhich, and is supporting, yet opposing both sides.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 16, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Allen Greenspan just admitted the war on iraq was about oil.  He's a friggin' reaganite.....



Sure, the war was about oil.

Wolfowitz and Lawrence Lindsey used to oil profits as one of the major reasons to sell the war to the American public.

Remember the Carter Doctrine of 1980?  Google it.


We had the gilded age, bronze, and Iron age, 

Now we are living in the Age of Oil.  The Oil Age.


Check out this book:  _The Prize_ by Daniel Yergin.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 16, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> I *never* did support this effort.
> 
> ...
> 
> If this was ever about a complete and total annihilation of the terrorists alleged to be behind 9/11 then it could have all been done and over two years ago.



Fair enough, you didn't support it, but I did.  And I don't give a rats ass what roll oil played in it.  They were an enemy, they needed to die.  It's no more complex than that.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 16, 2007)

Yeah the carter docterine, ironically written by a democratic president, is at the roots of the situation we are in today.  Soviet Union invades afganistan, we give them weapons... we give weapons to dictators and facists to protect our nations interests no matter how inhumane the result.  It's all about national interests, but more specifically, the intersts of the wealthy and powerful.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 16, 2007)

DOMS said:


> They were an enemy, they needed to die.  It's no more complex than that.



That's why the U.S. should have focused on Afghanistan, more actively persued Bin Laden, and not shifted forces, equipment, and funding _out of_ Afghanistan and _into_ Iraq.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 16, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Fair enough, you didn't support it, but I did.  And I don't give a rats ass what roll oil played in it.  They were an enemy, they needed to die.  It's no more complex than that.


Broken down into its base form yeah you're right ... partially: they needed to die for their attack on our soil and the attacks they made against us in the past.  A solid message had to be sent:  you bloody my nose I incinerate you and every one who stands with OR behind you.

It's much more complex than that though.  We are just as responsible for the choices we make globally as we are for the choices we make in our personal lives DOMS.  The lesson here is that our party loyalties have a consequence.  It's tied directly to how the political process is controlled and how we as Americans endorse the results of that process.  What we push for when it comes down to the support we throw behind those that lead us is our responsibility.  Party loyalty replaced global responsibility as all the Republicans rah-rah'd BushCo along this path of unnecessary human destruction ... now hundreds of thousands are dead that had nothing to do with terrorism or the attacks on our country.   We could have achieved the same results without murdering Ahmed, his wife and their kids when the only thing Ahmed had in plan for that day was to feed his goats and add a little more mud to the family hut.  They are victims of that party loyalty.  It gets way more complex ...


----------



## Witchblade (Sep 17, 2007)

Somebody ban this idiot.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 17, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Broken down into its base form yeah you're right ... partially: they needed to die for their attack on our soil and the attacks they made against us in the past.  A solid message had to be sent:  you bloody my nose I incinerate you and every one who stands with OR behind you.



And this is what happens when you tell a lie so many times:  it becomes the truth.  Iraq didn't attack the U.S.  If the official story is even correct, it wasn't the shiites, sunni's, or kurds.  That means Iraq had zero to do with it, which means Iraq is 100% about oil.  So there is no logic in that arguement be it partially or in any broken down form.  It's broken down idiocy so to speak, not direct at you specifically.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 17, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> And this is what happens when you tell a lie so many times:  it becomes the truth.  Iraq didn't attack the U.S.  If the official story is even correct, it wasn't the shiites, sunni's, or kurds.  That means Iraq had zero to do with it, which means Iraq is 100% about oil.  So there is no logic in that arguement that even partically or in any broken down form.  It's broken down idiocy so to speak, not direct at you specifically.



You shouldn't say "zero".  They did fund, and provide a base of operations, to terrorists that were actively attacking American interests.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 17, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> Somebody ban this idiot.


  ban BC?


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 17, 2007)

DOMS said:


> You shouldn't say "zero".  They did fund, and provide a base of operations, to terrorists that were actively attacking American interests.



You could claim that about anyone at anytime.  It's such a loose term to say that someone is attacking interests.  When you provoke such attacks with no fly zones and crazy sanctions, you have to expect that people will rebel, and even if it's some random group, they fired a rocket in that country, thus making the entire country a valid target.  Fuzzy logic.

There are still innocent people and civilians that want no part of it, and that's why you can't just nuke countrys.  That's taking the hitler way out.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 17, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> You could claim that about anyone at anytime.  It's such a loose term to say that someone is attacking interests.  When you provoke such attacks with no fly zones and crazy sanctions, you have to expect that people will rebel, and even if it's some random group, they fired a rocket in that country, thus making the entire country a valid target.  Fuzzy logic.
> 
> There are still innocent people and civilians that want no part of it, and that's why you can't just nuke countrys.  That's taking the hitler way out.



I wasn't advocating nukes, I was saying that we should have left just after we caught Saddam.

But you do have a point the fuzziness of it, but keep in mind that Saddam started put everything in motion by trying to annex Kuwait.

That's a well thought-out and written post BigDyl...what happened?

Could you give me a "True story" for old-times sake?


----------



## DOMS (Sep 17, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> ban BC?



I'm not sure if you joking, but Foreskin was here again flooding the site with crap.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 17, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> Somebody ban this idiot.


 ... me or one of the other idiots?



			
				BigDyl said:
			
		

> And this is what happens when you tell a lie so many times: it becomes the truth. Iraq didn't attack the U.S. If the official story is even correct, it wasn't the shiites, sunni's, or kurds. That means Iraq had zero to do with it, which means Iraq is 100% about oil. So there is no logic in that arguement be it partially or in any broken down form. It's broken down idiocy so to speak, not direct at you specifically.


You completely missed my point.  Re-read please ...



> I *never* did support this effort. ALL the results we have endeavored to "achieved" could have been equally well attempted while we were only in Assghanistan. We all see that the terroristic minded mo's ran over there to fight in Iraq. These hate America freakos came from Saudi, Syria, Iran, Assghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, as well as every other Islamofascist region of the world. That is in itself a tremendous thing. Collect all the ragheads that wanna attack us and call them onto a battlefield then have at it where they can't beat us, but they *can* die trying. My point is that these rectal droppings would have been equally content to die in Assghanistan as in Iraq. The huge difference is we would not have the blood of so many hundreds of thousands of non-Islmofascists on our hands.
> 
> I'm not Monday morning quarter backing here either.  This is the stance I've held from day one.
> 
> ...



You should have read down a little further so that you knew the entire conversation DOMS and I were involved in before misquoting me


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 17, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> ban BC?



I second the motion


----------



## brogers (Sep 17, 2007)

The problem was not that Saddam would use Chem/Bio/Nuke weapons against us, but that he would turn them over to stateless terrorists (ie Al-Qaeda) and then they would be used against us.  The solution to the WMD problem could have been bombing/cruise missiles, IMO.  If I was in charge and I knew about the Sunni/Shia situation as I do now, I wouldn't dare have made an attempt to install a new government.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 17, 2007)

busyLivin said:


> I second the motion


 ... The pain ... ohhh the pain.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 17, 2007)

brogers said:


> The problem was not that Saddam would use Chem/Bio/Nuke weapons against us, but *that he would turn them over to stateless terrorists (ie Al-Qaeda) and then they would be used against us.*



* Logic shoots this argument in the ass.* 
He never had these weapons you speak of.  We invaded him and hung him by the neck 'til he was dead as fried chicken.   From the several years and several inspections before the moment we invaded his ass on through now we have NEVER found any WMD's.  With me so far?  None of the WMD's BushCO claimed he had were ever found.  To whom did he give them away too?  So if he had them as you say, and we didn't find them then that can only mean he gave them away to those stateless terrorists (ie Al-Qaeda) organizations *~or~* his neighbors such as Syria, Pakistan, Assghanistan, Iran, and so on.  None of these Chem/Bio/Nuke weapons have ever been used in any field of battle against us.   Not even a lil dribble of biological or chemical weapons have been used on us by any of the forces we have fought in Iraq.  None of the mo's from Syria, Pakistan, Assghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon ... 

If any of those people had the weapons Sodamn Insane was supposed to have had and given away then we would have encountered them in the field of battle.  We would have been hit with something.  Some minor lil bit of it would have been lobbed our way at some point.  The *ONLY* way that these WMD's could have _*not *_been encountered is if they didn't exist in the first place.



> *The solution to the WMD problem could have been bombing/cruise missiles, IMO.* If I was in charge and I knew about the Sunni/Shia situation as I do now, I wouldn't dare have made an attempt to install a new government.


*
So then The solution to the WMD problem* could have been for BushCo to have never lied to the American public and the world about it in the first place.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 17, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> He never had these weapons you speak of.



Your argument falls apart right here.

He did everything that he could to make the world think that he had WMDs.  He did so good a job, that even the Russians told the US that he had them.  The US wasn't the only one that believed that he had them.

You're displaying what's called "hindsight".


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 17, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Your argument falls apart right here.
> 
> He did everything that he could to make the world think that he had WMDs.  He did so good a job, that even the Russians told the US that he had them.  The US wasn't the only one that believed that he had them.
> 
> You're displaying what's called "hindsight".





> Source= Merriam Webster
> *hindsight*
> 
> One entry found for *hindsight*.
> ...


Not really ... not at all.  I'm applying logic to back up what I've said from the very start of the Iraqi invasion so there is no "hindsight" involved here.  I'm saying the same things now that I've said since BushCo was posturing up for the invasion.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 17, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Not really ... not at all.  I'm applying logic to back up what I've said from the very start of the Iraqi invasion so there is no "hindsight" involved here.  I'm saying the same things now that I've said since BushCo was posturing up for the invasion.



Sure.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 17, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Sure?





			
				Me from a post back in 2004 said:
			
		

> We all now know that Sadam Insane was in an indefensible position. He either declared to the world that he was lying about his ability to meet a military challenge and expose himself to defeat at the hands of the enemies he created, or continue on his road to destruction at our hands. Either way he was screwed and was bound to fall to the destiny of his own creation. Many people still try to use the weak posture that Bush had no actual knowledge of Saddam's WMD's and it has become the common solution to the deception ... "He ignored UN resolutions". Bush knew Saddam Insane was all rhetoric and posturing yet instead of informing us, he deceived us. He presented a false case to the nation to justify taking the actions his group deemed a requirement. No-one can come in after the fact and rewrite a lie as a truth regardless of how noble the the outcome may be perceived.


Yup.  Absolutely sure.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 18, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Your argument falls apart right here.
> 
> He did everything that he could to make the world think that he had WMDs.  He did so good a job, that even the Russians told the US that he had them.  The US wasn't the only one that believed that he had them.
> 
> You're displaying what's called "hindsight".



Actually I was saying Iraq never had them from well before the 2003 invansion.  How did I know?  I read the reports from UNSCOM who were in iraq, attempting to locate those three weapon types for 7 years.  The report was finalized to say that at least 99% of all chemical and biolgical weapons were disarmed, accounted for, or destroyed.  There were no nulcear weapons present, which were also much easier to detect.

So I believed before the invasion that they had no weapons.  The alternative press made that point very clear, and I can bring up articles from 2002 and 2003 from the alternate press in which case would mean it's not "hindsight."  Ironically the progressive media seems to get it right most of the time while the mainstream media is busy serving it's financer's and of course the most powerful interests.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 18, 2007)

It's good to have BigDyl back.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 18, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> It's good to have BigDyl back.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 18, 2007)

min0 lee said:


> It's good to have BigDyl back.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 18, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Yup.  Absolutely sure.



Nice try, but your post is still after the fact.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 18, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Actually I was saying Iraq never had them from well before the 2003 invansion.  How did I know?  I read the reports from UNSCOM who were in iraq, attempting to locate those three weapon types for 7 years.  The report was finalized to say that at least 99% of all chemical and biolgical weapons were disarmed, accounted for, or destroyed.  There were no nulcear weapons present, which were also much easier to detect.
> 
> So I believed before the invasion that they had no weapons.  The alternative press made that point very clear, and I can bring up articles from 2002 and 2003 from the alternate press in which case would mean it's not "hindsight."  Ironically the progressive media seems to get it right most of the time while the mainstream media is busy serving it's financer's and of course the most powerful interests.



original article.

"[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]UNSCOM reported            to the Security Council in December 1998 that Iraq also continued to            withhold information related to its CW program. For example, Baghdad            seized from UNSCOM inspectors an Air Force document discovered by UNSCOM            that indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during            the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s as had been declared by Baghdad. This            discrepancy indicates that Iraq may have hidden an additional 6,000            CW munitions.

[/FONT]         [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In 1995, Iraq admitted            to having an offensive BW program and submitted the first in a series            of Full, Final, and Complete Disclosures (FFCDs) that were supposed            to reveal the full scope of its BW program. According to UNSCOM, these            disclosures are incomplete and filled with inaccuracies. Since the full            scope and nature of Iraq's BW program was not verified, UNSCOM assessed            that Iraq continues to maintain a knowledge base and industrial infrastructure            that could be used to produce quickly a large amount of BW agents at            any time, if needed."[/FONT]


----------



## brogers (Sep 18, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> * Logic shoots this argument in the ass.*
> He never had these weapons you speak of. We invaded him and hung him by the neck 'til he was dead as fried chicken. From the several years and several inspections before the moment we invaded his ass on through now we have NEVER found any WMD's. With me so far? None of the WMD's BushCO claimed he had were ever found. To whom did he give them away too? So if he had them as you say, and we didn't find them then that can only mean he gave them away to those stateless terrorists (ie Al-Qaeda) organizations *~or~* his neighbors such as Syria, Pakistan, Assghanistan, Iran, and so on. None of these Chem/Bio/Nuke weapons have ever been used in any field of battle against us. Not even a lil dribble of biological or chemical weapons have been used on us by any of the forces we have fought in Iraq. None of the mo's from Syria, Pakistan, Assghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon ...
> 
> If any of those people had the weapons Sodamn Insane was supposed to have had and given away then we would have encountered them in the field of battle. We would have been hit with something. Some minor lil bit of it would have been lobbed our way at some point. The *ONLY* way that these WMD's could have _*not *_been encountered is if they didn't exist in the first place.
> ...


 
The President, Senate, House, all saw the need to do so.  This is not "BushCo"  this was done by the US Government.  British intelligence agreed with this assessment. Have we found what we expected to find? No.  This piece of information would have been nice, but the choices were:  1) Trust our intelligence, 2) Trust Sadaam Hussein.  After 9/11, option 2 was unacceptable to the American people, and countless polls demonstrate so.

Don't bother bringing up the UN Inspectors.  Pres. Clinton even said "The Inspectors have not disarmed Sadaam, Sadaam has disarmed the Inspectors."


----------



## DOMS (Sep 18, 2007)

brogers said:


> The President, Senate, House, all saw the need to do so.  This is not "BushCo"  this was done by the US Government.  British intelligence agreed with this assessment. Have we found what we expected to find? No.  This piece of information would have been nice, but the choices were:  1) Trust our intelligence, 2) Trust Sadaam Hussein.  After 9/11, option 2 was unacceptable to the American people, and countless polls demonstrate so.
> 
> Don't bother bringing up the UN Inspectors.  Pres. Clinton even said "The Inspectors have not disarmed Sadaam, Sadaam has disarmed the Inspectors."



Well said.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 18, 2007)

This book was actually published before they delcared there were WMD's in Iraq and that it was an immenient thread.  They had planned to attack Iraq a long time ago anyways.  So very clear to me at least.

Amazon.com: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know: Books: William Rivers Pitt,Scott Ritter


----------



## DOMS (Sep 18, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> This book was actually published before they delcared there were WMD's in Iraq and that it was an immenient thread.  They had planned to attack Iraq a long time ago anyways.  So very clear to me at least.
> 
> Amazon.com: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know: Books: William Rivers Pitt,Scott Ritter



Have you actually read the book?

I ask, because every book that I've ever read that claimed "What <person/group/organization> doesn't want you know" was garbage.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 18, 2007)

Yes I have the book.  It's funny how I trust the former chief UN weapons inspector more than I do those who have an agenda and an alliegence with the oil industry.  Besides, ritter had nothing to gain by telling the truth.  The administration did a good job of ruining his credibility at least in the public opinion.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 18, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Yes I have the book.  It's funny how I trust the former chief UN weapons inspector more than I do those who have an agenda and an alliegence with the oil industry.  Besides, ritter had nothing to gain by telling the truth.  The administration did a good job of ruining his credibility at least in the public opinion.



The list of books my queue is pretty deep, but I'll add this book to it.

And don't fool yourself into thinking that they guys in the UN don't have an agenda.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 18, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Nice try, but your post is still after the fact.


I didn't post here 'til after that fact because I didn't join 'til 2004.  Does that make me a liar?


----------



## DOMS (Sep 18, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> I didn't post here 'til after that fact because I didn't join 'til 2004.  Does that make me a liar?



No necessarily a liar, but a purveyor of doubtful statements.

Up until the US started to gear up for war, a lot of people in the US and around the world believed that Saddam had WMDs.  

The only people that were vocally opposed were the French.  Because they have a greatest insight into world events and a higher moral ground than everyone else.  Well, that or they were Iraq's biggest creditor and worried that if Saddam's government was replaced, their debts would be voided.

I'm more inclined, because it's be so evident among so many people, that you're displaying hindsight bias.  There is the possibility your being honest, not only with me, but with yourself, it's just unlikely.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 18, 2007)

It just so happens that Ritter's fabricated story was true.  +1


----------



## Witmaster (Sep 20, 2007)

Pretty cool video a buddy showed me.






YouTube Video


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 20, 2007)

DOMS said:


> No necessarily a liar, but a purveyor of doubtful statements.  *Because you don't like what I say doesn't make what I say doubtful.*
> 
> Up until the US started to gear up for war, a lot of people in the US and around the world believed that Saddam had WMDs.  *True, a lot did.  Also true that a lot did not. We already had a report from head US weapons inspector David Kay clearly stating there was nothing there.
> *
> ...



As far as a factual response to what you posted, the WMD inspectors preliminary reports had already shown there was not a justification for an invasion of Iraq.   BushCo moved the date up for the invasion to pre-empt the complete weapons inspection report from reaching the American public.   Secretary Rice was already doing the 2-step on the forged yellow cake documents and the lies about the mobile bio-weapons labs.  Now the Blix crew had been allowed into Iraq by Sodamn Insane with complete unconditional access to every building and grain of sand in the country and was about to release their findings.  Blix set a date for the release of his report, then BushCo moved the attack date ahead of that release date.  They knew they were about to be outed as liars and lose the chance of going into Iraq.



> *David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group,* tells Congress that his investigation has found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Nor has he uncovered anything to support the theory that two trailers discovered in Iraq were mobile biological weapons factories. [US Congress, 10/2/2003; Washington Post, 4/12/2006]





> Hamish Killip, a British army officer and biological weapons expert, resigns from the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group, in protest of the CIA???s refusal to acknowledge that the alleged mobile biological weapons labs found by US forces in April (see May 9, 2003) and May (see April 19, 2003) of 2003 were in fact designed to produce hydrogen, not biological weapon agents. Two other members of the Iraq Survey Group???Rod Barton, an Australian intelligence officer and another bio-weapons expert???also quit this month for similar reasons. [Age (Melbourne), 3/26/2005; Los Angeles Times, 11/20/2005]


You mentioned Lincoln ...



> In a letter to his law partner, William H. Herndon, Abraham Lincoln disagrees with Herndon???s argument for preemptive war. ???_Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion??? and you allow him to make war at pleasure.??? The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood._??? [Lincoln, 2/15/1848]


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 20, 2007)

Nice and heart warming vid there Wit.  Looks like more of the "If you don't support the war you don't support the troops" brainfart.  Openly objecting to the Iraq war, or openly stating that the Iraqi war is not about the defense of America doesn't = bad thoughts about American GI's.  You've heard that so many times that by now one would think you'd stop this kind of ignorance.



Witmaster said:


> Pretty cool video a buddy showed me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 20, 2007)

Supporting the troops would be getting them out of the country....not leaving them there to be caught up in Bush's lie.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 20, 2007)

It is time we do get them out of there, what good has it done on our own soil?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 20, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Supporting the troops would be *getting them out of the country....not leaving them there* to be caught up in Bush's lie.



I think there will be troop reductions in the future, but the plan for the U.S. military and diplomatic machine is to stay there.

The U.S. has at least 14 bases (that I know of) and is building the largest embassy in the world on the banks of the Tigris.

By plan and design: the U.S. will be in Iraq for a very long, long, time.


----------



## Witmaster (Sep 21, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Nice and heart warming vid there Wit.  Looks like more of the "If you don't support the war you don't support the troops" brainfart.  Openly objecting to the Iraq war, or openly stating that the Iraqi war is not about the defense of America doesn't = bad thoughts about American GI's.  You've heard that so many times that by now one would think you'd stop this kind of ignorance.


Funny....

Everyone can jump on the anti-war bandwagon and it's all good.  But let one band write a song that is Pro-Troop and people get all defensive and insulting.

I never said objecting to the War mad you anti-GI.  All I did was post a link to a band who wrote a song illustrating the sacrifice of American Soldiers, Sailors and Marines and praising their efforts.

You call it a brain fart.

That's awesome.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 21, 2007)

Witmaster said:


> Funny....
> 
> Everyone can jump on the anti-war bandwagon and it's all good.  But let one band write a song that is Pro-Troop and people get all defensive and insulting.
> 
> ...


 Booooo hoooooo Wit 

Are you having a bad week?  Normally your game is a little better than this.  Lol ... yeah I just implied and did all that you are trying to say I did yet you weren't implying anything by this song right?   

You're really were very transparent. 

The concept you are trying to impose in has not even the quality of a assfart ... c'mon Wit get serious.  We are having a real discussion on the truth under the lies and you come in here with this nonsense 

Had this been an actual song about the dedication shown by our soldiers to this country then you would have been thanked for the contribution a song like that would have made to this thread.  But, since you brought it up this sing not about that at all.  This song is instead just more propaganda about how we that are against this war are against the men and women who fight it.   Mixing images of war protesters in with the images of people who show hate towards our soldiers in this video is a lame ass attempt by the artists who made it to clump the two very different groups together.  This video goes even farther and tries to show ALL people that protest any military action as haters of the soldiers that fight for our country.  It's a bullshit song Wit but you already knew that before you posted it.  You just tried to use it in the wrong thread is all.  Take it over to a forum populated by morons who actually believe this war is about our freedom and they may allow you to get by with it.


----------



## Witmaster (Sep 21, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Booooo hoooooo Wit
> 
> Are you having a bad week?  Normally your game is a little better than this.  Lol ... yeah I just implied and did all that you are trying to say I did yet you weren't implying anything by this song right?
> 
> ...


Perhaps you are right that this was the wrong thread to post it in.  Still, I'm a little surprised to see you being such a cock-stain about it.  I thought it was a great song... but then.. Someone like me would.

"boo Hoo..."  "Morons..." "nonsense..."

How bout this...


----------



## maniclion (Sep 21, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Supporting the troops would be getting them out of the country....not leaving them there to be caught up in Bush's lie.


We do get them out of the country, and then we send them to the craziest parts of the world so that when they come back home they are more than happy to have the slow small town country lifestyle they left....


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 21, 2007)

Witmaster said:


> Perhaps you are right that this was the wrong thread to post it in.  Still, I'm a little surprised to see you being such a cock-stain about it.  I thought it was a great song... but then.. Someone like me would.
> 
> "boo Hoo..."  "Morons..." "nonsense..."
> 
> How bout this...


Awww ... don't be mad Wit.  Even if you are mad ... you shouldn't be surprised.  Is this new news to you that I hate what BushCo has done to us all?  I've only been screaming it at the top of my lungs in every political thread I've posted insince I came here back in 2004.

Newsflash ... many hundreds of thousands of innocent people are now dead because blind party loyalty allowed our military to go to war in Iraq.  Yeah ... I'm pissed off about that.  You should be too Wit ... *more* so than I am.  You took the word of the people that lead your party on trust and they betrayed you ... _recurrently_ betrayed you.  Instead of getting angry at them you post songs about it and act like nothing happened, then get mad at me when I don't just sit back and act like what you posted is the gospel.


----------



## brogers (Sep 22, 2007)

It's fairly interesting that people think we can leave Iraq and that Al-Qaeda will just leave us alone.  I suppose their quest for a global caliphate will stop if we allow them to have Afghanistan and Iraq.  Y'know, just like Hitler and the Nazis were satisifed with the Sudetenland and Austria.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Sep 22, 2007)

brogers said:


> It's fairly interesting that people think we can leave Iraq and that Al-Qaeda will just leave us alone.  I suppose their quest for a global caliphate will stop if we allow them to have Afghanistan and Iraq.  Y'know, just like Hitler and the Nazis were satisifed with the Sudetenland and Austria.


When someone I don't like threatens me, I don't go fuck them up then move into their home and buy their groceries.  I go where they are and kick their ass.  I make sure the carnage is always enough so that I won't need to do it twice, then I get the hell out and go on with my day.  It's time for us all as a country to go on with our day ... now.

Your ideas about a Caliphate are well founded brogers.   With 2 billion Muslims running around the world today our presence in Iraq will not hinder that from becoming a reality in the least little bit though.  Look at this from another perspective.  If we stay there and secure Iraq in a way that = stability then we would still have a country bordered on all sides with the same sets of threats.  Do we then take down Iran, and Syria, and so on?  Do we continue to unite the factions that see us a a bigger threat then they see each other?

The original plan I signed on for ... what we ALL as a nation signed on for ... was to chase down terrorists and kill them.  We need to get back to that bit of business.  I am down with that.  I was excited about that when it was the original plan of action.  We cannot conquer the entire middle east and form them into what we believe they should be so that we then get what we want from them.  That would make US the Nazis.  That I am NOT down with.  That was not our original plan of action.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 22, 2007)

brogers said:


> It's fairly interesting that people think we can leave Iraq and that Al-Qaeda will just leave us alone.  I suppose their quest for a global caliphate will stop if we allow them to have Afghanistan and Iraq.



There is no global quest for a caliphate for many reasons.

One is that the nation-states from Morroco to Afghanistan to Indonesia have many cultural, linguistic, political, and historical differences.

The only people talking about a "Global Caliphate" are a few loons.  There are 1.2 billion muslims in the world. 

The term "Caliphate" was improperly used by George W. Bush and used for propaganda purposes in Iraq.



> Y'know, just like Hitler and the Nazis were satisifed with the Sudetenland and Austria.



There is no comparison to Hitler and Al-Qaeda or other extremist groups for serveral reasons:

-Germany was a nation-state, Al-Qaeda is an organization of individuals.

-Hitler had many different plans based upon his beliefs, which primarily not 
religious.

-Germany used a national military push forward its objectives, Al-Qaeda rarely uses formal military means.


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 23, 2007)

Big Smoothy said:


> There is no global quest for a caliphate for many reasons.
> 
> One is that the nation-states from Morroco to Afghanistan to Indonesia have many cultural, linguistic, political, and historical differences.
> 
> ...



Exactly, war can only happen when a state delcares war on another state.  Al-Qaeda is not a state, but a group of militants spread throughout the middle east (and world).  You'd have to declare war on the world... oh wait we may do that.


----------

