|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Want to know the best part about the new Osama tape?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: 9:35
Its that if you told any republican a day after 9/11 that you really didn't care about Osama, they would call you un-American and probably throw a bible at you. So where is this public outcry by the republicans about this new tape, with Bush having said he truly doesn't care about Osama anymore? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?? ARE YOU GUYS FORGETTING 9/11??
Posted by: AOTY2KB
I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'
- George W. Bush, Beaverton, Oregon, Aug. 13, 2004
We stand for things.
- George W. Bush, Davenport, Iowa, Aug. 5, 2004
Posted by: NyGulkuk
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
Posted by: Null Actor
That tape is pretty crazy. The worst part is the good points Bin Laden is making. Worst, because he will automatically be ignored because of being Bin Laden.
Posted by: Chaotic
Uhh -- Gosh, I -- don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those, uhh, exaggerations.
SPOILER: (highlight to read)
Bush
Posted by: INeedHelp
Hey I could be wrong I think he was talking to Saddam, the quote came from the third presidential debate in Arizona State University.
Posted by: Shalome
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
That tape is pretty crazy. The worst part is the good points Bin Laden is making. Worst, because he will automatically be ignored because of being Bin Laden.
|
I liked the part where he basically said "We don't "hate you for your freedoms," you idiots, we hate you because of your unwavering support for Israel. DUH!" -- which is kinda what all us non-neocon overeducated liberal scum have been saying all along...
Posted by: IceBreaker
Interesting, nonetheless - Osama's concern for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and his devotion to the Palestinian cause - even though he himself is not of palestinian descent..
Posted by: Ocean
wasn't there a part about him saying he expected at least one plane to be shot down because it would take the bush administration 20 minutes to figure out what was going on. and then he was like, it was a bigger success because george bush read a children's book, and they were able to operate freely without military intervention for 40 minutes.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Interesting, nonetheless - Osama's concern for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and his devotion to the Palestinian cause - even though he himself is not of palestinian descent..
|
Man, its almost like people support other people they aren't directly related to! What an outrageous concept!
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ocean
wasn't there a part about him saying he expected at least one plane to be shot down because it would take the bush administration 20 minutes to figure out what was going on. and then he was like, it was a bigger success because george bush read a children's book, and they were able to operate freely without military intervention for 40 minutes.
|
Not to mention the likelihood that the Bush administration played a deliberate part in the 9/11 attacks (as junior knew these attacks would only serve to cement his hold on power). The problem is, their involvement will never be proven - not as long as the conservatives remain in power, anyways. Which is all the more a reason to vote against them...
Posted by: Shalome
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Interesting, nonetheless - Osama's concern for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and his devotion to the Palestinian cause - even though he himself is not of palestinian descent..
|
I'm curious as to why you think it's "interesting." The Israeli-Palestinian conflict largely comes down to Muslims and Jews claiming the same land as holy ground and homeland. Bin Laden claims to be fighting for all Muslims against oppression -- hence his targeting of the United States for our past 50 years of strong and unquestioning financial and military support of the Israelis, and hence his support of Palestine.
Were you asking the question as flamebait, or are you genuinely ignorant of the political and historical context? 
Posted by: Canis Lupus
(stupid posts - and the replies to them - removed)
Alright, let's try that discussion again without the condescending remarks, the sarcasm and the flaming ... it's really becoming STUPID now.
For once let's have a political discussion that actually concentrates on the issues instead of against each other... it doesn't matter who started the topic, anyone who posts stupid remarks will have his post jettisoned. This topic is close to being thrown in the garbage can...
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Not to mention the likelihood that the Bush administration played a deliberate part in the 9/11 attacks (as junior knew these attacks would only serve to cement his hold on power). The problem is, their involvement will never be proven - not as long as the conservatives remain in power, anyways. Which is all the more a reason to vote against them...
|
that is the silliest thing i have ever heard, and i detest the man. yeah, i can see gwb throwing the airline industry, military, and general economy into the garbage can for several years only 8 months after he entered office just so he can get reelected 3 years later.....
the iraq invasion was a power grab, not a terrorist attack.
funny thing, i support the palestians too. regardless of their religion, as they come in all flavors including christian and jewish. OMG i must be a terrorist like bin laden
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shalome
Were you asking the question as flamebait, or are you genuinely ignorant of the political and historical context?
|
not really - actually I answered that question but you censored my answer to his post...
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
that is the silliest thing i have ever heard, and i detest the man. yeah, i can see gwb throwing the airline industry, military, and general economy into the garbage can for several years only 8 months after he entered office just so he can get reelected 3 years later.....
|
Yet you do not detest him enough to believe him capable of colluding with the enemy, even to serve his own interests. Sweet.
Or is the mere thought of it simply too horrible to bear? http://www.touslessmileys.com/modul...age.php/723.gif
Maybe W – or rather, his advisers – knew that the economy was more resilient than anyone would have thought.
Maybe junior had other, long term priorities that far outweighed those of the airline industry – say, the black gold industry for example?
Maybe the Iraq war would never have been carried out…had it not been for the 9/11 attacks, which turned out to be nothing short of a godsend to bush & his clique…
Maybe it just so happens that he places his own personal welfare way above those of his country. And don’t tell me it would be the first time a leader was willing to sacrifice his people in pursuit of his own selfish little interests. Ex-dictator Joseph-Désiré Mobutu is but one such example ; )
As you may have noticed, I’m not stating anything, I’m only saying there are reasons that would suggest that the Bush administration may have been involved in the attacks if not actively, at least by the curious confluence of coincidences that resulted in the government's failure to react accordingly. The following I already explained in a another post, but this was also deleted. So here goes again:
We have 19 islamist terrorists - of whom 7 are actually alive as their identities were stolen by the hijackers, whose real identities still remain unknown to the public - and no one could explain how they managed to overpower the cockpits’ crews of 4 JUMBO JET airliners without even a SINGLE ONE issuing an alert, and fly about unhindered in one of the globe’s most protected airspaces for two hours.
But it gets better: consider the fact that these blokes who could not even fly a light passenger aircraft miraculously acquired skills worthy of trained air combat pilots - after training at the Huffman Aviation Center - a school with CIA connexions, and which the terrorist leader Mohammed Atta just happened to choose – a school whose owner Wally Hiliard has known ties to the Bush family. and whose president Rudy Deckers has now had several attempts on his life (mere coincidence perhaps?)
But if that’s not enough to strain your credulity, here’s more …
Why did Minister of Justice John Ashcroft cease commercial flights towards late July 2001, for "un-specified threats"?
Why was the Air National Guard ordered to stand down the day before the attack?
This could be partly explained by the fact that on the morning of 9/11 several drills were being performed, which started around 8:30 am.
But then why all these drills on that fateful day? According to the government, they were just a “coincidence”. Go figure.
Air Defence had two airbases, the 1st within 7 minutes interception time and the other within 10 minutes if I’m not mistaken, along the flight path of the jet that hit the Ministry of Defence.
When in October 1999 Payne Stewart, en route to Dallas, lost control of his private jet how was the Air Defence able to scramble two F16s and have them escort the aircraft within ten minutes - whilst unable to intercept any of the four jumbo jets in a period of two hours, during the 9/11 attacks?? Could there have been perhaps another agenda at work? One can understand the 1st plane making it through – possibly - but certainly not 3 more. Not by a long shot.
The jet that hit the MoD descended 7000ft in 2 mins in a tight spiralling turn which air traffic controllers described as a “military manoeuvre” in its precision – and remember, we’re talking about a 757 jet airliner - then it proceeded at tree top height, actually clipping some branches, to strike dead center a 70 foot high wall. And all this allegedly accomplished by someone trained only in flight simulators who had never flown a Jumbo jet at all.
To cap it all, add the fact that one year after the attacks, junior called on the all too infamous Henry Kissinger to cover-up the whole thing, er I mean to lead an “independent investigation” into the attacks...
I understand that the notion of 9/11 foreknowledge is a disturbing one – and not readily entertained. The red pill may be hard to swallow, but at least admit that there are enough questions unanswered to warrant further interest in what the Bush administration would be all too willing to dismiss as a 'silly' conspiracy theory -)
Posted by: Null Actor
The bush administration was not involved with the 9/11 attacks for a very simple reason: The truth always comes out. If they were involved, they would be crucified. Them and everyone involved. Probably literally. One does not collude in the deaths of 3000 people and walk away.
edit: And just to cast light on one of icebreaker's more out to lunch assertions...
Quote:
|
The jet that hit the MoD descended 7000ft in 2 mins in a tight spiralling turn which air traffic controllers described as a “military manoeuvre” in its precision – and remember, we’re talking about a 757 jet airliner - then it proceeded at tree top height, actually clipping some branches, to strike dead center a 70 foot high wall. And all this allegedly accomplished by someone trained only in flight simulators who had never flown a Jumbo jet at all.
|
Actually, the jet hit the ground before hitting the building.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
The bush administration was not involved with the 9/11 attacks for a very simple reason: The truth always comes out. If they were involved, they would be crucified. Them and everyone involved. Probably literally. One does not collude in the deaths of 3000 people and walk away.
|
no kidding. do you know how well recieved a Bush whistleblower would be by the democrats? it would be the story of the MILLENIUM. no one in the world would better benefit from bush planning 9/11 than to come out with the story itself, but then again, THERE IS NO 9/11 COVERUP
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
The bush administration was not involved with the 9/11 attacks for a very simple reason: The truth always comes out. If they were involved, they would be crucified. Them and everyone involved. Probably literally. One does not collude in the deaths of 3000 people and walk away.
|
Maybe, maybe not.
But over 4 decades later, do we still know who was behind the murder of JFK?
And more important: was the matter brought to Justice? ; )
You seem pretty optimistic about the truth always comoing out. I wish I could share that optimism. But the truth coming out is not enough. Those responsible must be subjected to the full force of the Law. They must be made to answer to the People.
And that's another matter...
Posted by: Null Actor
The only coverup about 9/11 would be whether or not the bush administration did enough to prevent it, or ignored threats. And the 9/11 panel figured most of that out, even though most people chose to ignore it.
And yes... a Bush whistleblower would have been received as the messiah himself if Bush really was in on the attacks. You can't plan something like that without word getting out. Not in north america, not if you use technology.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
You seem pretty optimistic about the truth always comoing out. I wish I could share that optimism. But the truth coming out is not enough.
|
And then there are the people who don't accept the truth, no matter how obvious it is. An enemy in every shadow.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
Actually, the jet hit the ground before hitting the building.
|
But wasn't it the passengers who intervened?
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
But wasn't it the passengers who intervened?
|
What does that have to do with your facts being outright wrong in your tinfoil hatter post?
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
What does that have to do with your facts being outright wrong in your tinfoil hatter post?
|
i see right through your lies, you must be a bush supporter too because you don't believe he was behind those planes that hit the buildings!!!!!!! in fact i don't even think you're from canada either thats another coverup! GOP SHILL
Posted by: Null Actor
This has all, oddly enough, brought Dr. Strangelove to mind.
Posted by: Null Actor
You said
Quote:
|
The jet that hit the MoD descended 7000ft in 2 mins in a tight spiralling turn which air traffic controllers described as a “military manoeuvre” in its precision – and remember, we’re talking about a 757 jet airliner - then it proceeded at tree top height, actually clipping some branches, to strike dead center a 70 foot high wall. And all this allegedly accomplished by someone trained only in flight simulators who had never flown a Jumbo jet at all.
|
Which is patently false. It doesn't matter anything else. You are espousing at best poor information and at worst outright lies in your attempt to propagate these ridiculous conspiracy theories. Sounds to me like you are just parroting stuff you've read elsewhere without verifying it first. Here's a word of advice: A lot of what you read on the net isn't accurate, you've got to make sure yourself before accepting it as law.
What the hell does state involvement have to do with your unfactual information? I don't know where you are trying to come from, but it sure seems like you are trying to ignore my point and shift the discussion.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Strange, I thought you were trying to do the same. As for the plane hitting the ground, let me get this straight - are you talking about the 3rd or 4th plane (the one headed for the White House)?
And what would you consider a reliable & "verifiable" source of information, to which the average civilian can have access, pray tell? Fox News? :|
Or would you suggest hacking into the CIA's databases, perhaps? Or simply asking them to relate the events?
Do the people even have the means to corroborate the official version of what happened? I was simply saying that this whole story is riddled with contradictions, and questions left unanswered, and that alone is enough to give way to reasonable doubt. What's wrong with that?
Posted by: Null Actor
Icebreaker: www.snopes.com is a great place to start. Lots of good info. On top of that, just knowing from reading many independant and reliable news sites what happened. Do I have a ton of links? No. But a lot of what I do read comes from the BBC.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Good. Thanks for the link. As long as it's non-governmental, I'll readily check it out -)
Posted by: Canis Lupus
useless posts removed once again... unfortunately, the flaming outweighed the good points in those posts...
One more flame or sarcastic remark in this topic, and I'll be suspending at least TWO people until Thanksgiving...
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
useless posts removed once again... unfortunately, the flaming outweighed the good points in those posts...
One more flame or sarcastic remark in this topic, and I'll be suspending at least TWO people until Thanksgiving...
|
Okay, I'm fine with no more flames.
Icebreaker, would you please explain how Bush was involved with 9/11 without breaking it down into a matter of personal opinion?
Posted by: IceBreaker
My answer to your previous post was deleted along with the rest 
Anyways, you said I could not support my "theory". Yes, to make up a theory requires solid evidence. But since when is questionning the truth akin to fashioning a full blown theory? Of course I could have cited internet sources - the Web no doubt abounds with them - but I was stalled when Null Actor cited the Net as "inaccurate" :|
You said I could not back up my "claims", but then I ask you again: when the average layman casts aspersions upon official information, information which is relayed to him by the STATE - HOW is he expected to justify or dispel such concerns beyond the shadow of a doubt? In one of your posts, you stated outright:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
THERE IS NO 9/11 COVERUP
|
Now that, on the other hand, IS a rather peremptory statement. But can you substantiate it? How do you know for sure? If indeed you do have a source of unquestionable, unshakeable truth then what is it?
Posted by: 9:35
That post does not explain how Bush was involved with 9/11.
Icebreaker, would you please explain how Bush was involved with 9/11 without breaking it down into a matter of personal opinion? When you are done, then I will answer yout other questions.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
My answer to your previous post was deleted along with the rest
Anyways, you said I could not support my "theory". Yes, to make up a theory requires solid evidence. But since when is questionning the truth akin to fashioning a full blown theory? Of course I could have cited internet sources - the Web no doubt abounds with them - but I was stalled when Null Actor cited the Net as "inaccurate" :|
You said I could not back up my "claims", but then I ask you again: when the average layman casts aspersions upon official information, information which is relayed to him by the STATE - HOW is he expected to justify or dispel such concerns beyond the shadow of a doubt? In one of your posts, you stated outright: Now that, on the other hand, IS a rather peremptory statement. But can you substantiate it? How do you know for sure? If indeed you do have a source of unquestionable, unshakeable truth then what is it? |
Your stance of "it's possible because you can't disprove it" is another fallacious argument. You aren't going to get any kind of an upper hand in this debate if you don't stop trying to shift the discussion away from previous points.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
Your stance of "it's possible because you can't disprove it"
|
But when exactly did I take that stance, pray tell?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
That post does not explain how Bush was involved with 9/11.
Icebreaker, would you please explain how Bush was involved with 9/11 without breaking it down into a matter of personal opinion? When you are done, then I will answer yout other questions.
|
I believe I answered your question - I'll make it clearer this time:
In the light of what has been said so far:
THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE - is this what everyone wanted to hear?
To deem it possible to challenge official information irrefutably is absurd as just about the only valid, rock solid proof (aside perhaps from hacking into the CIA computers, but I think that's illegal) would be a confession from the authorities - and preferably a signed confession from the president himself.
Good luck with that -)
Posted by: 9:35
so you can't explain how Bush was behind 9/11, and you can't give any evidence that would support your argument except 'a confession that has yet to be made by an official we don't yet know,' along with your personal opinion that Bush benefited greatly from the attacks.
guess that means there is no 9/11 coverup, right?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
so you can't explain how Bush was behind 9/11, and you can't give any evidence
|
You forgot "irrefutable": no irrefutable evidence ; ) As to "an official we don't know", well I said that the president himself - whom we do know - could also make a written confession; but again, that is unlikely..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
guess that means there is no 9/11 coverup, right?
|
One is innocent until proven guilty. If that applies to the State as well, then I guess what cannot be seen does not exist :|
As for Bush benefiting from the attacks - well the media did treat us to W's countless speeches on terror & references to 9/11™ - which appeared to be the crux of his arguments - when trying to justify the war in Iraq even before the UN. But then again, are even the media reliable nowadays...
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
You forgot "irrefutable": no irrefutable evidence ; ) As to "an official we don't know"
|
if you're suggesting that you do have evidence of Bush being behind 9/11 then go right ahead and post it
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
if you're suggesting that you do have evidence of Bush being behind 9/11 then go right ahead and post it
|
?! You mean, even the old controversial links - is internet-based info, while "unreliable", considered acceptable nonetheless?
Posted by: 9:35
i guess thats up to you to decide
Posted by: redwench
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. it is not up to everyone else to prove that the sky is not falling, you have to provide evidence that it is.
Quote:
But over 4 decades later, do we still know who was behind the murder of JFK?
And more important: was the matter brought to Justice? ; )
|
yes. a mentally deranged individual that chose to die rather than surrender to authorities.
Quote:
You seem pretty optimistic about the truth always comoing out. I wish I could share that optimism. But the truth coming out is not enough. Those responsible must be subjected to the full force of the Law. They must be made to answer to the People.
And that's another matter...
|
putting aside the meaningless slogan of "answer to the people", the only response to that is: Huh? You allege that the president of the US engineered a terrorist attack on the us that killed thousands, caused billions in damage, sunk the national economy for years, then used that as a platform to launch a foreign war that also killed thousands of americans. there is a question that if this is true and becomes public, criminal charges would follow? we impeach presidents for lying about sex. i dont think theres much of a concern about terrorism and murder leading to similar things.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
i guess thats up to you to decide
|
When information is deemed questionable, it is up to everyone to decide as all are entitled to their opinion ; )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
yes. a mentally deranged individual that chose to die rather than surrender to authorities.
|
Ole Oswald? Yes, that's the official version, and has been challenged quite a number of times for the past 40 years BTW. Thus it is not as obvious as the sky being blue or not falling on our heads. So prove it 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Redwench
You allege that the president of the US engineered a terrorist attack
|
1) Again, I did not allege anything.
2) The questions - not allegations - I put forth suggested that the government may have aided those who engineered the attacks (and I guess just about everyone agrees as to who it was - Uncle Bin & Holy Co...)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
there is a question that if this is true and becomes public, criminal charges would follow? we impeach presidents for lying about sex. i dont think theres much of a concern about terrorism and murder leading to similar things.
|
Well for one thing, I believe no president has ever been convicted as a result of impeachment. On the other hand, maybe Clinton simply chose not to use his powers abusively and intervene so as to coercively alter the course of justice. Maybe he's just too honest to do so. I don't know (I'd say he is, however since I appreciate the man that would be somewhat subjective) But if so, and if W were impeached, do you believe he would demonstrate the same uprighteousness?
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
When information is deemed questionable, it is up to everyone to decide as all are entitled to their opinion ; )
|
i can't evaluate your links before you post them and i really don't know what secret phrase you want me to say for you to just post them already
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
i can't evaluate your links before you post them
|
yes I know that. And no secret phrase needed. Your saying "i guess thats up to you to decide" sounded somewhat like a trap... I'll avoid fancy names like "antigovernmental.org" or "conspiracy.com" just to make sure -)
I read these links quite a few years ago, but fortunately they are still out there.
How about this link?
Or this one?
And another one. Not sure if it's the same article, but I remember the 'timeline' therein.
I remember this one mentionning the failure of the authorities to act despite repeated warnings from foreign intelligence, namely the Mossad. Saved it on disk, too...
And here's one mentionning the famous Kissinger, amongst other things.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Ole Oswald? Yes, that's the official version, and has been challenged quite a number of times for the past 40 years BTW. Thus it is not as obvious as the sky being blue or not falling on our heads. So prove it |
You know, I can challenge just about anything. That doesn't mean what is already known is incorrect. A challenge by itself is pointless. If they came up with proof of something, that's altogether different.
But saying something has been "challenged" in order to imply that what what is a commonly accepted explanation is wrong, or not the "real truth"... that is beyond ridiculous.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
yes I know that. And no secret phrase needed. Your saying "i guess thats up to you to decide" sounded somewhat like a trap... I'll avoid fancy names like "antigovernmental.org" or "conspiracy.com" just to make sure -)
I read these links quite a few years ago, but fortunately they are still out there.
How about this link?
Or this one?
And another one. Not sure if it's the same article, but the I remember the 'timeline' therein.
I remember this one mentionning the failure of the authorities to act despite repeated warnings from foreign intelligence, namely the Mossad. Saved it on disk, too...
And here's one mentionning the famous Kissinger, amongst other things. |
these links suggest you switched your position from "bush was behind 9/11" to "bush allowed 9/11 to happen."
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
You know, I can challenge just about anything. That doesn't mean what is already known is incorrect. A challenge by itself is pointless. If they came up with proof of something, that's altogether different.
But saying something has been "challenged" in order to imply that what what is a commonly accepted explanation is wrong, or not the "real truth"... that is beyond ridiculous.
|
"Already known"? "Commonly accepted explanation"? I say 'taken for granted', more like. It's the official version that was given to the public. If the ministry of justice were to disclose all the files, if it could be proven beyond any doubt that it was indeed Oswald who acted alone & on his own volition, that would be another matter. But to blindly accept that as the truth as they would have you believe it, without even questioning it, that is...well just plain ridiculous -)
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
these links suggest you switched your position from "bush was behind 9/11" to "bush allowed 9/11 to happen."
|
No I did not "switch positions" (cf. 4th post, and also my reply to redwench). Once again, I'm saying the authorities may have aided the hijackers, there's a difference ; )
Posted by: Bishop
This is a mighty fine game of DDT you guys are playing where do I sign up?
Posted by: Shalome
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
not really - actually I answered that question but you censored my answer to his post...
|
For the record, I was not the one moderating this topic.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shalome
For the record, I was not the one moderating this topic.
|
?!
oops http://forum.presence-pc.com/icones/smilies/whistle.gif
http://forum.presence-pc.com/images...topicalacon.gif
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
It's the official version that was given to the public.
|
ah, of course. its the official version, therefore it cannot possibly be correct.
Quote:
|
If the ministry of justice were to disclose all the files, if it could be proven beyond any doubt that it was indeed Oswald who acted alone & on his own volition, that would be another matter.
|
and once again, you seem to want people to prove a negative. you cannot prove someone didnt have accomplices, you only can have the absence of evidence to the contrary. next youll be asking people to prove that aliens dont exist.......
and as nova said so eloquently, just because questions are raised doesnt mean they are in any way connected to reality. people question the moon landing for pete's sake 
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
ah, of course. its the official version, therefore it cannot possibly be correct.
|
Damn, you too have been assimilated ^^
No I said sometimes it doesn't necessarily have to be correct.
My, such blind trust in the almighty State...funny, considering how a few days ago during our little 'skirmish' over a religion, you stood up for this religion which amongst other things preaches individualism over collectivism ; )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
and once again, you seem to want people to prove a negative. you cannot prove someone didnt have accomplices, you only can have the absence of evidence to the contrary.
|
http://www.touslessmileys.com/modul...ge.php/1769.gif WRONG. The correct question is:
Why is information being concealed to the public?
As for the moon landing - frankly, I don't care
Posted by: redwench
what information are you refering to? you keep blathering on about it, but never mention what it is.
Posted by: Bishop
If he told you, then he would have to kill you.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
what information are you refering to? you keep blathering on about it, but never mention what it is.
|
http://www.touslessmileys.com/modul...age.php/723.gif But that's the point - how do you expect me to obtain it if it is classified? Your question makes no sense 
Posted by: redwench
ah, i see. my question about your information makes no sense because you have none. got it.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Well, basically you're asking: "tell me what they're hiding"...
Teach me how to hack into FBI files, then I'll gladly enlighten you ^^
By the way I'm curious to know: the "magic-bullet" theory was essential to the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Do you perchance believe in that theory? :|
Posted by: redwench
as im not about to look up that theory, no i do not believe in it
why on earth anyone would even be interested in the subject after 40 years is beyond me......
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
By the way I'm curious to know: the "magic-bullet" theory was essential to the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Do you perchance believe in that theory? :|
|
Actually, the more research that goes in to the problem, and the more detailed computer simulations get, the more it becomes likely that there was again only one bullet and that it did get fired from where Oswald was.
Consider how for the longest time, Doctors had no idea why when smacked on the left side of the head with a baseball bat, most of the damage to your brain occured on the right side. It's one of those things that if you just question it without the right knowledge, you'd say "That's impossible! Something must have hit them on the right side too!"
But computer simulations have answered the question beyond a doubt.
So that being said, your position is one of absolute paranoia. You claim they are hiding something because you believe they are... but you have no basis for this belief. I could tell you that Dubya is actually a hermaphrodite and that he's hiding it. And you know what? I would sound about the same as you. Because it's really not at all likely, and any reasonable person can tell you that Bush is, in fact, male, and that I was a crackpot for thinking otherwise.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
Actually, the more research that goes in to the problem, and the more detailed computer simulations get, the more it becomes likely that there was again only one bullet and that it did get fired from where Oswald was.
|
Interesting.
Source? (a reliable one, please - remember, "A lot of what you read on the net isn't accurate"  )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
So that being said, your position is one of absolute paranoia. You claim they are hiding something because you believe they are... but you have no basis for this belief.
|
At the risk of being told I'm "shifting the discussion"...your mentionning paranoia is interesting - for those who, for example, denounce the Patriot Act & Homeland Security Act are also dismissed as paranoids - by the government & their minions. Now I do believe that you too oppose these acts. So I guess that makes you a paranoid...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
I could tell you that Dubya is actually a hermaphrodite and that he's hiding it. And you know what? I would sound about the same as you.
|
Bollox. I don't see how him being a hermaphrodite would affect the people in any way. We're talking about the assassination of a leader who 1) was chosen by the People (unlike the one who succeeded him thereafter) and 2) was quite popular in his time. Ipso facto, IF his assassination was orchestrated by government officials, that could be considered a direct blow to democracy itself, wouldn't you agree? That's the reason why I cited the Patriot Act a few lines earlier, BTW. It also answer's redwench's question ; )
Issues such as JFK, 9/11, Luther King or even the Rosenbergs are, in my opinion, a tad more serious than a leader possibly being a hermaphrodite, his dog being an mutant or the moon landing being a hoax -)
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
why on earth anyone would even be interested in the subject after 40 years is beyond me......
|
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" - Thomas Jefferson http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...ilies/wink2.gif
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Interesting.
Source? (a reliable one, please - remember, "A lot of what you read on the net isn't accurate" ) |
TV mostly. Discovery channel. Believe it or not if you will.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
At the risk of being told I'm "shifting the discussion"...your mentionning paranoia is interesting - for those who, for example, denounce the Patriot Act & Homeland Security Act are also dismissed as paranoids - by the government & their minions. Now I do believe that you too oppose these acts. So I guess that makes you a paranoid...
|
The difference is, the right wingers who call people paranoid over the patriot act have an alterior motive. I am just a person in a discussion. What would my alterior motive be? It doesn't matter to me one way or another if JFK was shot by a nut, or by a conspiracy of his own government. More on that later.
Quote:
|
Bollox. I don't see how him being a hermaphrodite would affect the people in any way.
|
It doesn't affect the people, it was an example of wild pointless speculation and how anyone can make absurd claims that are more than likely not true, while on the same hand trying to persuade someone to believe by using arguments such as "But it *could* be true".
Quote:
We're talking about the assassination of a leader who 1) was chosen by the People (unlike the one who succeeded him thereafter) and 2) was quite popular in his time. Ipso facto, IF his assassination was orchestrated by government officials, that could be considered a direct blow to democracy itself, wouldn't you agree? That's the reason why I cited the Patriot Act a few lines earlier, BTW. It also answer's redwench's question ; )
|
Look, I understand your point about not forgetting history, but at this point, there are immediate and current attacks on democracy. Why would someone choose to focus on something from 40 years ago, when just about everyone who could have possibly been involved would be out of politics now?
Consider, if you will, the fact that this election will be one of the most important elections for democratic history, and that the amount of cheating and fraud going on is more than ridiculous. Why would one choose to focus on something that A) He can't change or affect in any way, and B) Has no bearing on current events?
My point here, so that you don't think I'm wandering off, is that you choose to use JFK as an example or reasoning to try and prove a current day point, when in doing so all you are really doing is trying to pull up other conspiracy theories in order to attempt to validate your own.
This is a ridiculous method of debate and I'm not really going to involve myself in it anymore. I feel like I'm stuck in an episode of The Lone Gunmen.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Well, basically you're asking: "tell me what they're hiding"...
|
...which is a reasonable question because you keep refering to it over and over
Posted by: redwench
yes, thats the standard ploy when one has no concrete evidence to supply. just pull up something vague, and keep repeating it over and over again. eventually, people begin to believe it.
arsenic cures cancer.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
...which is a reasonable question because you keep refering to it over and over
|
a somewhat awkward & contradictory one, more like...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
yes, thats the standard ploy when one has no concrete evidence to supply. just pull up something vague, and keep repeating it over and over again. eventually, people begin to believe it.
|
How true - after all, that's the very "ploy" that government officials & politicians excel in - and the people end up believing it -)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
as im not about to look up that theory, no i do not believe in it |
tss tss - now THAT is tantamount to sedition :|
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
TV mostly. Discovery channel. Believe it or not if you will.
|
Oh but I do believe you saw it on TV :|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
It doesn't affect the people, it was an example of wild pointless speculation and how anyone can make absurd claims that are more than likely not true, while on the same hand trying to persuade someone to believe by using arguments such as "But it *could* be true".
|
No, it was a wild pointless example of speculation, more like. Irrelevant & immaterial. The example you put forth could be deemed worthy of a gossip magazine at best. When I said the official versions of the events had been challenged, I wasn't talking about some fancy article in the tabloids. I was talking about researchers & scholars a bit more astute than us, who have solid reasons to call into question what the authorities would have them gobble up. Here's an article that looks at the issue. Only internet-based, but worth reading nonetheless ; )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
Look, I understand your point about not forgetting history, but at this point, there are immediate and current attacks on democracy. Why would someone choose to focus on something from 40 years ago, when just about everyone who could have possibly been involved would be out of politics now?
|
Yes - and out of existence, perhaps. Without ever having been brought to justice. You may be fine with this, I am not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
My point here, so that you don't think I'm wandering off, is that you choose to use JFK as an example or reasoning to try and prove a current day point, when in doing so all you are really doing is trying to pull up other conspiracy theories in order to attempt to validate your own.
This is a ridiculous method of debate and I'm not really going to involve myself in it anymore.
|
But even more ridiculous is the fact that all this talk about JFK started when someone said that "the truth always comes out" - sound familiar? ; ) And I said I differ on this point. But for you to even state it, and subsequently dismiss JFK as a 40 year-old event, is to take a rather contradictory stance isn't it? For how are we to discuss whether "the truth always comes out" without citing past events? Are we to predict the future?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
Consider, if you will, the fact that this election will be one of the most important elections for democratic history, and that the amount of cheating and fraud going on is more than ridiculous.
|
In this I concur. All the more so than I myself believe that the elections are fraught with inconsistencies. As to my take on the outcome, I'd go for something like 50.01/49.99 in favour of Bush. It has to be made believable -)
Posted by: 9:35
When you can't come up with evidence to support your claims, THAT IS NOT OUR FAULT! If you don't know what information you're after or where it is, THAT IS NOT OUR FAULT! That is YOUR fault. YOU have to produce the information. And if you're clueless on how to obtain it, thats a knock against your case.
I don't get whats complicated about this. You can't drudge up the information, or don't have the means to, then you are not right in saying that it exists.
Posted by: IceBreaker
This is akin to saying that if secrets are being kept, then there are no secrets. That if a locked door cannot be opened, then there is nothing behind that door. As you can see, this makes no sense. But if according to you what is concealed does not exist, I guess you have every right to think so. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
This is akin to saying that if secrets are being kept, then there are no secrets. That if a locked door cannot be opened, then there is nothing behind that door. As you can see, this makes no sense. But if according to you what is concealed does not exist, I guess you have every right to think so. We are all entitled to our opinions.
|
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you can't even begin to describe the information that your entire argument is based upon then anything you say based upon that unknown information is irrelevant
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you can't even begin to describe the information that your entire argument is based upon then anything you say based upon that unknown information is irrelevant
|
But what if an argument is based upon the fact that the information IS unknown? ; )
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
But what if an argument is based upon the fact that the information IS unknown? ; )
|
the fact that the information is unknown does not refer whatsoever to the information that is hidden. for example, if the information is about dogs but we don't know that, its okay because we're not refering to dogs at all when we say "the information is unknown."
additionally, since you have no clue as to what this "information that may or may not exist" contains, then you hold no ground whatsoever in basing any theory on that unknown information.
sorry but all of this still makes your argument irrelevant.
Posted by: IceBreaker
=> Concerning a clue as to what the information could be (falsified reports, details of the autopsy concealed from the public, discrepancies in the official investigations etc) well I could post some links, but then again these could be promptly dismissed as unreliable, since "net-based" ; )
And that has no bearing on the fact that the information is hidden:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
the fact that the information is unknown does not refer whatsoever to the information that is hidden.
[...]
additionally, since you have no clue as to what this "information that may or may not exist" contains, then you hold no ground whatsoever in basing any theory on that unknown information.
sorry but all of this still makes your argument irrelevant.
|
Because you still fail to see my point. And I fail to see why. Let me get back to my previous example:
I'm asking why the door is locked.
And basically, I'm being asked what is behind this door.
But that alone is irrelevant. What I've been trying to point out is that THE VERY FACT THAT THE DOOR IS LOCKED IS SUSPICIOUS. If the State has nothing to hide, the first question you should be asking youself is not 'what are they hiding' but 'why are they hiding it'! To attempt to assign some arcane depth to a clear question such as this simply makes no sense.
Posted by: Null Actor
To use your own analogy, the issue here is that we don't see a door at all. But you claim there is one, and it's locked. We're just asking where the door is.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Good. Although I don't think that's what the others were asking.
So you claim that the government wasn't hiding anything at all from the public. A bit naive, but that is your right... BTW did you check out the the article I cited in my previous reply?
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
So you claim that the government wasn't hiding anything at all from the public.
|
WHAT ARE THEY HIDING! we aren't saying the government is hiding something, because YOU HAVE YET TO SAY WHAT IT IS THEY ARE HIDING!
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
WHAT ARE THEY HIDING! we aren't saying the government is hiding something, because YOU HAVE YET TO SAY WHAT IT IS THEY ARE HIDING!
|
So you too believe that they are hiding something. Good! But as to what they are hiding...guess what: I don't know for sure, since it is hidden! :| Of course I can have my own clues as to what it is, but then again:
WHAT SOURCE OF INFORMATION do you consider acceptable?
Posted by: 9:35
Oh Jesus Christ. You really have to be kidding me. Where did I say I thought the government was hiding something?
Posted by: 9:35
Actually, nevermind. I'm done with this topic.
You don't have a shred of evidence. You can claim all you want that the government is hiding something, but until you can actually show some proof that they are (and you have none, I don't care how many times you tell me to magically find a reliable source for you to give to me), your points are pretty dead.
You can go on and talk about chances and doors and other tinfoil hat stuff, but you won't convince a single person in your favor because you have nothing to back it up. Dance around it all you want, the bottom line is you have no evidence.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
Oh Jesus Christ. You really have to be kidding me. Where did I say I thought the government was hiding something?
|
Damnit you must be doing this on purpose - I thought I'd been clear enough - Null Actor, at least, understood what I meant. Forget it.
You want to know what information the government could be withholding from the people - in other words, you expect me to see what is hidden, but never mind:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
I don't care how many times you tell me to magically find a reliable source for you to give to me), your points are pretty dead.
You can go on and talk about chances and doors and other tinfoil hat stuff, but you won't convince a single person in your favor because you have nothing to back it up. Dance around it all you want, the bottom line is you have no evidence.
|
Yes I liked the door part :| Anyways I'm not asking you to find a source - that wouldn't make sense. What I'm saying is I have no source that you would deem reliable.
Again, I COULD CITE ONLINES SOURCES here & now, but you guys will not accept them - otherwise you'd have asked me to post them by now, as you did for the 9/11 issue ; )
Posted by: 9:35
Whatever dude. You put words in my mouth by saying I believe the government was hiding something, and when I asked you to tell me where I said it, you derail once again by not answering any question whatsoever. That tactic is really boring and it isn't fooling anyone.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Damnit you must be doing this on purpose - I thought I'd been clear enough - Null Actor, at least, understood what I meant. Forget it.
You want to know what information the government could be withholding from the people - in other words, you expect me to see what is hidden, but never mind:Yes I liked the door part :| Anyways I'm not asking you to find a source - that wouldn't make sense. What I'm saying is I have no source that you would deem reliable.
Again, I COULD CITE ONLINES SOURCES here & now, but you guys will not accept them - otherwise you'd have asked me to post them by now, as you did for the 9/11 issue ; )
|
We aren't asking the exact details of what is being hidden, we are asking what is being hidden in the sense of... animal vegetable or mineral? Bigger than a baby's arm? What topic?
If your answer is just "They are hiding something about 9/11" then go away, troll. To claim someone is hiding something, you have to know at least what kind of thing they are hiding. Otherwise you are the same as a person on the street that runs up to a random stranger and screams "YOU ARE HIDING SOMETHING, AREN'T YOU! I KNOW THE TRUTH! HAHAHAHAH!".
Posted by: Null Actor
Okay, it totally just clicked for me while I was preparing dinner why this conversation is so screwed up.
It's because on our side of things, we are assuming that you have a reasonable foundation for your accusations. To reasonable people, to accuse somenoe of hiding something, you need suspicion. Not unfounded suspicion, but reasons for your suspicions.
The JFK thing has lasted so long because there was so much suspicion raised by the evidence; bullet path, entry/exit wounds, etc. There was reasonable suspicion that oswald may not have been the shooter, or more than one shooter, etc.
So what we are asking for is not what is hidden, but what has aroused your suspicion in leading you to believe that they are hiding something. Now, for this to be valid, it must be reasonable suspicion. If you are just suspicious with no reason, well then, that's called paranoia.
So, IceBreaker, what are your founded suspicions?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
We aren't asking the exact details of what is being hidden, we are asking what is being hidden in the sense of... animal vegetable or mineral? Bigger than a baby's arm? What topic?
If your answer is just "They are hiding something about 9/11" then go away, troll. To claim someone is hiding something, you have to know at least what kind of thing they are hiding.
|
About 9/11, I believe I already answered that a few pages ago. As to what they could be hiding, well that's simple enough to understand isn't it? I said they could be hiding the fact that they aided the hijackers, period. 9:35 told me to post the links, did you at least check them out?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
Whatever dude. You put words in my mouth by saying I believe the government was hiding something, and when I asked you to tell me where I said it, you derail once again by not answering any question whatsoever. That tactic is really boring and it isn't fooling anyone.
|
No, what is really boring - and annoying - is your asking the same thing over & over again even though it does not pertain to my own question. Never mind, here are a few articles I gleaned from the net:
This article looks at the possible mishandling of JFK's autopsy
Here's another one, it refers to what is known as the 'Schweiker-Hart' report, discusses the possible involvement of the president's own government in the assassination.
And here: did Oswald really act alone, as they'd have you believe?
Another one, a short article to which you may not lend much credence compared to the others, but there's no harm in reading it ; )
And finally, here's the bible of truth, er I mean the official report - not that the government will acknowledge any involvement so don't expect a mea culpa, but I thought it worth citing so you can see for yourselves that the famous "magic bullet" is mentionned therein.
This bullet, according to the official account, is supposed to have caused ALL of the president's wounds - and also injured the nearby governor, while it was at it.
If so, it must have had some very powerful runes written on it http://www.touslessmileys.com/modul...age.php/723.gif
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I don't think the topic was about JFK... let's try to steer this back on topic, shall we...
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
No, what is really boring - and annoying - is your asking the same thing over & over again even though it does not pertain to my own question. Never mind, here are a few articles I gleaned from the net:
|
i have to keep asking the question over and over because you refuse to answer it
Quote:
This article looks at the possible mishandling of JFK's autopsy
Here's another one, it refers to what is known as the 'Schweiker-Hart' report, discusses the possible involvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvv vvvvvvvvv
|
yeah okay that jfk stuff is really nice and all but it has NOTHING to do with your claim that bush was behind 9/11, the evidence of which you have YET to show us
...and its become pretty clear by now that you have none
you know what, just ignore everything above this because nova z said it better:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
So what we are asking for is not what is hidden, but what has aroused your suspicion in leading you to believe that they are hiding something. Now, for this to be valid, it must be reasonable suspicion. If you are just suspicious with no reason, well then, that's called paranoia.
So, IceBreaker, what are your founded suspicions?
|
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
Quote:
This article looks at the possible mishandling of JFK's autopsy
Here's another one, it refers to what is known as the 'Schweiker-Hart' report, discusses the possible involvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvv vvvvvvvvv
|
yeah okay that jfk stuff is really nice and all but it has NOTHING to do with your claim that bush was behind 9/11, the evidence of which you have YET to show us |
?! so just a few posts earlier it was JFK and now all of a sudden it's back to 9/11.
Heh I'm fine with that - for I believe I already answered about 9/11 - no earlier than yesterday. Surely you must remember, it wasn't such a long time ago...
But I'll repost it here to spare you guys the hassle:
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker not so long ago
I read these links quite a few years ago, but fortunately they are still out there.
How about this link?
Or this one?
And another one. Not sure if it's the same article, but I remember the 'timeline' therein.
I remember this one mentionning the failure of the authorities to act despite repeated warnings from foreign intelligence, namely the Mossad. Saved it on disk, too...
And here's one mentionning the famous Kissinger, amongst other things.
|
So I ask you the same question I asked Null Actor:
DID YOU CHECK OUT THOSE LINKS?
If not, now would be about time ; )
Posted by: SKYHN
My favorite part of the new Osama tape:
FREE NINTENDO DS's for EVERYONE!
Osama, you rule.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
So I ask you the same question I asked Null Actor:
DID YOU CHECK OUT THOSE LINKS?
If not, now would be about time ; )
|
those links do not suggest bush was behind 9/11 like you said
neither do they say the government is willingly withholding information that would prove an involvement
if you really want to refute me, then point out a notable bit of text in those links that further backs up your claims, because i think you just googled a few links without actually reading them in hopes of getting us to back down or something. nothing on those links comes close to the statements you' | |
