Loose Change

Talk about current events, entertainment, technology or anything not related to soccer
cfrealmadrid
Veteran Member
Posts: 1921
Joined: 19 Feb 2005, 04:00
Location: Pittsburgh

Post by cfrealmadrid » 13 Aug 2006, 15:05

i mean "why" anything. i just don't see the point. you could say it's about oil, but even then, you have to concede that bush DID try to find a source of oil other than in the middle east. he's been wanting to drill in alaska for a long time now. hell, that's why we bought that whole area in the first place!! but the environmentalists say "aw, we can't destroy all those trees!" and lame sh*t like that, and then they get mad when bush does something else to get oil. god, it's like the poor guy can't win. i don't think he's doing that good of a job or anything, but at least he's trying. you know what, i'm way off topic, so i'm just gonna stop.
Hala Galacticos

A-man147
Moderator
Posts: 425
Joined: 11 Jan 2006, 22:12

Post by A-man147 » 13 Aug 2006, 17:01

cfrealmadrid wrote:but the environmentalists say "aw, we can't destroy all those trees!" and lame excrement like that, and then they get mad when bush does something else to get oil. god, it's like the poor guy can't win. i don't think he's doing that good of a job or anything, but at least he's trying. you know what, i'm way off topic, so i'm just gonna stop.

Firstly what do you mean "lame excrement like that" trees have more use than oil. And the reason he chose the middle east is because its easy to make lots of people on his side just by saying the word "terrorist", when he says that anything goes [kill 1 millon kids in Iraq because the country has nuclear weapons, still to be proven], and this "poor guy" your talking about has killed more innocent people than the terrorists have.
Image KEvinR9

"In 1969 I gave up woman and alcohol. It was the worst 20 minutes of my life." George Best

LYM.randy
Senior Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 06 May 2006, 06:27
Location: washington DC

Post by LYM.randy » 13 Aug 2006, 17:47

Everything is a conspiracy.
There are conspiracies everywhere.
Your parent's conspired to give birth to you.
A football team conspires to win.
People who say they don't believe in conspiracies are generally not the most highly educated members of society. Especially in the United States you have an ENTIRE generation which has lived for 40 years without ever knowing who assassinated John F Kennedy.
It's a sick population who accepts that type of injustice and lives with it. I would keep that in mind whenever I say things like "just forget about it" or "it doesn't matter now anyway" or "I don't believe in conspiracies".

That being said, I think it's clear we will never know EVERYTHING about 911. What we can know are more fundamental questions and dialectic anomalies and inform ourselves through history.

We know there were terrorist. We know there were planes. A number of these things are pretty clear. But start asking questions like a scientist or detective, without the need for mountains of factual evidence.
Example:
Who benefited from 911? Osama bin Laden?
Can terrorist organizations like al quaida exist without state sponsorship?
Was there a change in foreign policy that would not have happened otherwise?
Did the US not have preperations in the event of this contingency which would justify the shock and surprise? Didn't the US have plans regarding planes used as missiles since at least as early as Tom Clancy's book "Executive Order"?
What is the history of terrorist organizations? Where did they come from? How did they get their funding?
What are the interest's of the funders?
Terrorism can cause wars where there are no winners, merely losers in a scenario of perpetual warfare. Who would benefit from war's where there are no winner, only paralyzed governments?

These types of questions don't require level 5 security clearance at the CIA. And these type of questions make me sure that whereas the US government AS A WHOLE did not perpetrate 911, there must have been a faction or number of people within the government at certain levels who ALLOWED this to happen. All out planning top down from government figures seems a bit absurd because of the difficulty involved.
BUT, a situation where a number of rogues elements within a government who would benefit from a planned attack NOT being prevented seems plausible and within the realm of possibility. Hiring an assassin is much more dangerous and difficult then manipulating a deranged psychopath into the direction of an intended target.

cfrealmadrid
Veteran Member
Posts: 1921
Joined: 19 Feb 2005, 04:00
Location: Pittsburgh

Post by cfrealmadrid » 14 Aug 2006, 23:04

A-man147 wrote:Firstly what do you mean "lame excrement like that" trees have more use than oil. And the reason he chose the middle east is because its easy to make lots of people on his side just by saying the word "terrorist", when he says that anything goes [kill 1 millon kids in Iraq because the country has nuclear weapons, still to be proven], and this "poor guy" your talking about has killed more innocent people than the terrorists have.
can we agree that saddam hussein was a terrorist? if so, then what about the millions of people he tortured, raped, and killed? saying that our president is worse than that because of a misguided, at worst, decision is just plain unintelligent. many of the people our army is killing are terrorists anyway, and they are by no means "innocent." and i know this is not related to the initial topic, but numerous officials in hussein's cabinet have reported that WMDs were shipped to syria. but hey, why credit the testimony of government officials when we can simply blame our own president for being a dumbass?
Hala Galacticos

A-man147
Moderator
Posts: 425
Joined: 11 Jan 2006, 22:12

Post by A-man147 » 15 Aug 2006, 06:21

I never said he is worse, I think they're the same.
Image KEvinR9

"In 1969 I gave up woman and alcohol. It was the worst 20 minutes of my life." George Best

cfrealmadrid
Veteran Member
Posts: 1921
Joined: 19 Feb 2005, 04:00
Location: Pittsburgh

Post by cfrealmadrid » 15 Aug 2006, 22:59

A-man147 wrote: this "poor guy" your talking about has killed more innocent people than the terrorists have.
sorry, i took that to mean you thought he was worse. my mistake. anyway, this being the case, i revise my previous statement.

"saying that our president is as bad as the terrorists just because of a misguided, at worst, decision is just plain unintelligent."
Hala Galacticos

A-man147
Moderator
Posts: 425
Joined: 11 Jan 2006, 22:12

Post by A-man147 » 16 Aug 2006, 16:38

cfrealmadrid wrote:
A-man147 wrote: this "poor guy" your talking about has killed more innocent people than the terrorists have.
sorry, i took that to mean you thought he was worse. my mistake. anyway, this being the case, i revise my previous statement.

"saying that our president is as bad as the terrorists just because of a misguided, at worst, decision is just plain unintelligent."
Its all good :D .

And I dont think he can make unintelligent decisions, because he probably has other people working for him that know what they're doing, anyway, I think there is more to this than meets the eye.
Image KEvinR9

"In 1969 I gave up woman and alcohol. It was the worst 20 minutes of my life." George Best

Post Reply