Mustapha Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 That post sounds like Crozza is trying to take the heat of Osama. Infact all the way through the thred the infidel Crozza supports the terrorist by saing it was the americans whot done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollocks Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 That post sounds like Crozza is trying to take the heat of Osama.Infact all the way through the thred the infidel Crozza supports the terrorist by saing it was the americans whot done it. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crozza Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Wow - 16 pages, 318 replies, 4463 views and still arguing - longest conspiracy thread ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bollocks Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 September 11th - Who had the motive? The Project for the New American Century - Rebuilding America's Defenses http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC Members Dick Cheney - Current Vice President, Defense Secretary during the bombing of Iraq's oil infastructure in the 1991 Gulf War. As chief executive of Haliburton (1995-2000 & still on the payroll) he won the contracts from Saddam to repair what had been bombed. His wife currently sits on the board of Lockheed Martin. Donald Rumsfeld - Current Defense Secretary, sold weapons to Saddam in the 80s on behalf of Daddy Bush, known as Mr. Aspartame for role in the approval of the of the lethal articifial sweetner, also on the board of ABB the Swiss engineering company that sold North Korea their LW reactors. Paul Wolfowitz - Former Deputy Defense Secretary and current head of the World Bank Michael Ledeen - Involved with Lucio Gelli and right wing groups in Italy connected to the P2 scandal. Zalmay Khalizad - Appionted as Bush's envoy to Afghanistan after the war to oversee the transition of the new government. He was also chief advisor to Unocal on the pipeline project that was planned in 1997 but they were forced to pull out after an uproar from womens rights groups because of the treatment of women by the Taliban. Another Unocal advisor during the pipeline deal was Hamid Karzai who became the new president of Afghanistan after the war. Just a coincidence nothing to worry about! Richard Perle - On the defense policy board of Pentagon. James Woolsey - Head of CIA during the 1990s, also on the defense policy board of the Pentagon and a mate of Ahmed Chalabi. Douglas Feith - Holds a major policy making position in the Pentagon Jeb Bush - Brother of the President and Governor of Florida during the scammed elections which brought these guys to power. William Kristol - A Chairman of PNAC. Regular spots on Fox news to project and promote PNACs policy. This is what the document says... "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." It calls for a blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence and shaping the "international security order" in line with "America's principles and interests". This "American Grand Strategy" must be advanced "as far into the future as possible" and the US must "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" as a "core mission". Calls American armed forces "the cavalry on the new American frontier". Says that key allies like the UK are "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". Says that peacekeeping missions demand "American political leadership rather than that of the UN". Highlights North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya as "dangerous regimes" targets for takeover and says their existence justifies the creation of a "world-wide command-and-control system". It also spotlights China for "regime change" saying "it is time for the presence of American forces in southeast Asia". This could lead to "American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China". Calls for the creation of "US Space Forces" to dominate space and total control of cyberspace to prevent their "enemies" using the Internet. Talks of developing biological weapons that can target "specific genotypes" - this may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a "politcally useful tool". It also says that the "Process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbour". Can Rog, or anyone else who claims the know what they're talking about, shed some light on this post? It's information like this that sways my opinion in favour of what the 'jihad supporting tin foil hat wearing terrorist massive (or as rog put it, the mad, bad and sad)' have to say. Documents like this clearly show the mentallity of these sinister fuckers who pull the strings in todays world. We just want what's morally right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTool Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 If asking questions is terrorism then hell i am a terrorist then. Its human nature to ask questions about things and to have a mind of your own is a crime too then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Thanks for stretchin my screen. I would have scrolled sideways but I was afraid it was a Government conspiracy. Must...resist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haX0red_Account Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 thanks Rog- I do appreciate you taking the time out to put your opinion over; I was aware of the substation and diesel issue and I still don't agree totally there but reckon we'd all benefit from a bit more of stuff like you just did rather than the tinfoil brigade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crozza Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTool Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 well here is a few pics i found for you to mull over Don't you think Yussir arafat is ringo starr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Thanks for stretchin my screen. I would have scrolled sideways but I was afraid it was a Government conspiracy. Must...resist... It says in your interests "I'll try anything once...", why dont you try opening your ignorant little mind? All you seem to be able to offer to this debate is childish little 'your're all conspiracy freaks' jibes. Have you even done any research into the subject, or have you just decided that governments would never do such a thing anybody who thinks otherwise needs to be placed in a straight jacket and locked away for even daring to question the governments legitimacy? Oh I have an opinion on something involving the CIA that isn't the Government line. But it's not to do with 9/11. I attempted to pay attention to the posts but I'm not convinced by your arguments. Happy now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 As ever an overlong Chinahand post ... but what the heck ... on this topic its not unusual! Crozza, Bollox are you serious in wanting to understand the issues around the re-armament of the US and the transformation Rumsfelt and Cheney have initiated in US defence spending. This happened significantly before 911 ... you'll probably latch on to that as proving it was a conspiracy, but unfortunately I take the total opposite of view. The right wing in the US seriously attacked the Clinton regime for running down the US armed forces. In the late 1990s a significant proportion of the US's front line combat forces were having serious problems due to lack of spare parts, hemoraging of troops due to poor recruitment and the increase in Military Actions Other Than War (MAOTW): ie peacekeeping, relief operations etc. During the Kosovo conflict push literally came to shove and the Pentagon did not respond. The Clinton presidency requested ground troops from the Pentagon and were turned down ... all they got was a deployment of Apaches prior to the Yugoslav collapse. There is a famous Madaline Albright quote about having this amazing military, but not being able to use it. The US has had a two theatre defence policy for much of recent history. The most famous example of a two theatre conflict is WWII with the Japanese and European theatres; today it would be the Middle East and North Korea. Defence cuts due to the peace dividend after the end of the cold war and the other requirements Clinton had started using the military for had put the two theatre policy under tremendous strain and when Clinton requested the US to be involved in a little war in Kosovo the strain this put on the Pentagon meant they had to make a choice between standing down the two theatre policy or putting troops into Kosovo ... the Pentagon's reply was the Europeans had to do it; they'd provide air support. The right wing hated this; can you remember a US senator saying Clinton shouldn't show his face at military bases? They saw the continuing running down of military budgets in the 12 years since Reagan retired as a disaster for the US and actively campaigned for a transformation of the US military. As soon as Bush got in Rumsfelt started doing this; the US defence budget was put back up to late 1980's levels as soon as he took over; I can clearly remember debating this with my professor well prior to 911 in 2000. Your statements that the US wouldn't have rearmed without 911 just don't wash ... these plans were on going when that occured and haven't significantly altered after it. Without 911 the Neo Cons would still be banging on about Iraq, Iran and North Korea and they were absolutely determined that the US must be prepared for what they saw as an increasingly dangerous world ignored by Clinton. The list of names you give were and are the prime suspects who said the US had to rearm. Prior to 2000 they were in opposition and they were publishing manefestos saying what they were going to do and once they were elected they did it: starting in 2000. They were telling the US electorate that the US was becoming like it was in the 1930's and they were going to stop it. And they did ... starting in 2000 when their active campaigning got Bush re-elected. They didn't need 911 to do it. You make 911 central to everything ... I just do not find that convincing ... I don't understand why you think that a statement made to attack Clinton to portray him has a president who was leaving the US as unprepared as occured in the 1930s makes 911 a conspiracy. I have no idea why you think that it was necessary for WTC 7 to fall for the US to do all this? Are you really implying that they would put all this at risk so they could blow up a building and make a bit of money out of an insurance fraud. And sorry do you know how much Cheney is worth. WTC 7 is just a bit of money for him and his like and the global multinationals. The right wing didn't need 911 to rearm, they didn't need it to make the Middle East's oil supplies the most important geo-political issue for the US. Your linking of 911 to these issues is so putting the cart before the horse I find it just unbelievable. I've spent a reasonable period of time reading your posts and web sites. If what you alluded to, or even a tiny part of it, was true then it would have huge repucssions. But I find the arguments put forward incredibly unconvincing. They come over as just a hodge potch of unrelated facts that is built up into a story the author claims is of huge importance. I do not see the connections. The use of innuendo, distortions and just plain bad science is incredible ... time and time again I've looked into the claims and found they don't hold up. What am I left with; a series of unsubstantiated rumours, dubious hypothesis and a stangely omnipotent, but stupid government. You're certain that pools of molten metal show the towers were demolished by explosions and not by a hugely intensive and concentrated fire ... why? [on a side point ... molten, or distorted and glowing and glowing, I find the difference significant] The most important issue you raise is the rearmament of the USA, the geopolitics of the the middle east and the fact that the US puts its interests central to its defence policies. These are all important issues and have been a major concern for most of the last half century. Their connections to 911 are remote and tenuous and your attempts to link them just don't convince me ... at all ... one bit ... You'll say I've a closed mind and am blinded by the establishment. I don't think so ... I take account the fact the US is not a post-modernist country, and neither is China, or Iran. The rearmament of the US, and geopolitics are massively important, but 911 isn't ... your obsession with it misses the wood for the trees and stops people taking you seriously. I'd really give it a rest. But then again topics about genuine geopolitcs fizzle out after about 10 posts. I suppose I should praise you for keeping people interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 It says in your interests "I'll try anything once...", why dont you try opening your ignorant little mind? All you seem to be able to offer to this debate is childish little 'your're all conspiracy freaks' jibes. I agree with Sarahc and anyone else who thinks "you're all conspiracy freaks". You're all conspiracy freaks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 That post sounds like Crozza is trying to take the heat of Osama. Infact all the way through the thred the infidel Crozza supports the terrorist by saing it was the americans whot done it. What? Don't you understand Inglish boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTool Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 WilDDog we all need a hobby you know. I am happy in my freaky world, a world where i tend to look at more than the newspapers for my information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.