We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 2876 comments are related to the topic:
9/11 was it a conspiracy?
9/11 was it a conspiracy?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 2,876
|
By:
the two women behind Kennedys car when they blew his head off, both say it, if i am remembering right. At least one did anyway
|
|
By:
You also say that I have a personality disorder.
As your so keen on evidence,what is your evidence for this assertion? Because you have a problem trusting those in power. You think they lie to us all the time. Wow seriously Sunset you come accross as a kn0b head, so someone has a personality disorder because they have a problem trusting someone in power  Jesus are you thick or just a idiot? |
|
By:
tangsoodo Joined: 24 Dec 02
Replies: 1102 16 Oct 10 17:14 the two women behind Kennedys car when they blew his head off, both say it, if i am remembering right. At least one did anyway Are you talking about Beverley Oliver? You probably know that she is controversial. She claims that her camera was taken by Fedaral agents and never returned. Beverly Oliver In 1970, a woman named Beverly Oliver came forward and claimed to be the Babushka Lady. She had worked in 1963 as a singer and dancer at a strip club that competed with Jack Ruby's Carousel Club. In 1994, she released a memoir chronicling the events of the day of Kennedy's assassination, but she has not been able to provide convincing proof she was there. Oliver says her film was taken by Federal agent Regis Kennedy and never returned. Critics have noted a number of inconsistencies with her story, such as her alleged use of a model of camera that did not exist in 1963, and her claim to have positioned herself just behind Charles Brehm and his son, despite Brehm's statement that he and his son had hurried to that position at the last moment.[4] Also, the fact that the Babushka lady appears to be a stout, middle-aged woman, whereas Oliver was 17 at the time of the assassination, tends to cast doubts on Oliver's claims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babushka_Lady |
|
By:
[b]Hbkisonhisway Joined: 06 Sep 10
Replies: 3812 16 Oct 10 17:50 You also say that I have a personality disorder. As your so keen on evidence,what is your evidence for this assertion? Because you have a problem trusting those in power. You think they lie to us all the time. Wow seriously Sunset you come accross as a kn0b head, so someone has a personality disorder because they have a problem trusting someone in power Jesus are you thick or just a idiot? [/b] I find that those that go round calling people kn0b heads usually are in fact knob heads themselves.Is that the best you can do? You have to stoop so low and use ad hominem arguments because you can't provide any evidence for your conspiracy beliefs.This is really sad.I'm the knob head, but you are the one making abusive personal remarks.You have this back to front.I could be wrong about the personality disorder, but gene does seem some what paranoid.And you are immature and need to grow up. |
|
By:
I dont have no conspiracy beliefs you prat but to call someone to yell some one they have a personality disorder because they dont trust people in power is insane. I cant refer who you were refering to but you a p1llock for saying it to him. And you need to grow up your sad very sad.
|
|
By:
I dont have no conspiracy beliefs you prat but to call someone to yell some one they have a personality disorder because they dont trust people in power is insane. I cant refer who you were refering to but you a p1llock for saying it to him. And you need to grow up your sad very sad.
Oh the irony of it. You are the one doing the name calling like a 5 year old, but I'm the one who needs to grow up.lol |
|
By:
Sunset Cristo ,You need to wise up m8, if Governments are to believed without question,why is Mugabe still around and Saddam Hussain dead ,after all they had appointed themselves the worlds policemen with sole aim of ridding the world of a despot,no ulterior motive eh? just altruism ? earlier in the thread you stated their was no catalyst for the Vietnam war I suggest you read up on the Gulf of tonkin incident
|
|
By:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261
|
|
By:
Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."
Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public." And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth." |
|
By:
This is a revealing interchange with Hermann Goering at Nuremburg in 1946, from here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Gilbert(the interviewer): There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. |
|
By:
Some people actually think governments truly care in a matriarchal way about its citizens,ffs,ANYTHING will justify the means to the power of the state, you are a pawn on a chessboard to simply ingest spoon fed facts from Goverment's without question is naive in the extreme.
Great post slarty,one of the best on here |
|
By:
Sunset Cristo Joined: 21 Jul 07
Replies: 2000 18 Oct 10 17:59 I dont have no conspiracy beliefs you prat but to call someone to yell some one they have a personality disorder because they dont trust people in power is insane. I cant refer who you were refering to but you a p1llock for saying it to him. And you need to grow up your sad very sad. Oh the irony of it. You are the one doing the name calling like a 5 year old, but I'm the one who needs to grow up.lolLaugh Your just a idiot ad i think most people on here will agree with me. Dont go telling people they have personality disorders because they dont trust the government thats the most stupid thing i have heard in a long time. And whoever you aimed it, ive forgotten now didnt deserve it just because he doesnt trust the people in charge. |
|
By:
ROCKIN HORSE Joined: 29 Aug 02
Replies: 1690 18 Oct 10 18:31 Sunset Cristo ,You need to wise up m8, if Governments are to believed without question, I have never said this. In fact I'm on record as saying the opposite. You have to check everything, who ever says it. why is Mugabe still around and Saddam Hussain dead ,after all they had appointed themselves the worlds policemen with sole aim of ridding the world of a despot,no ulterior motive eh? just altruism ? I agree the Americans are not consistent otherwise they would have done something about N Korea. They did have ulterior motives. They believed the intelligence they received about weapons of mass destruction because that is what they wanted to believe. earlier in the thread you stated their was no catalyst for the Vietnam war I suggest you read up on the Gulf of tonkin incident Yes I remember. I responded by saying it was the fog of war. This is McNamara talking about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k |
|
By:
Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."
Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public." And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth." Of course sometimes they lie. Sometimes they tell the truth and sometimes they don't even know what the truth is.Happened again recently with Linda Norgrave's death. First it was the Taliban killed her and then it was changed to the US special forces. Why wasn't it covered it? They could have easily done it if the US government are so dishonest as some would have us believe. |
|
By:
slartybartfast Joined: 10 Jul 04
Replies: 979 18 Oct 10 19:59 This is a revealing interchange with Hermann Goering at Nuremburg in 1946, from here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Gilbert(the interviewer): There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. As much as I hate to say it I have to agree with Göring some times. People are very willing to take orders from those in authority. This has been proven with scientific experiments. |
|
By:
ROCKIN HORSE Joined: 29 Aug 02
Replies: 1690 18 Oct 10 20:10 Some people actually think governments truly care in a matriarchal way about its citizens,ffs,ANYTHING will justify the means to the power of the state, you are a pawn on a chessboard to simply ingest spoon fed facts from Goverment's without question is naive in the extreme. Great post slarty,one of the best on here I would agree with this, but you haven't proven that myself or anyone else who has posted on this thread actually just naively believes everything the government says. There are of course many people that do that, but I don't think you will find them on this thread. Masher,Pandy and others have all done independent research and have given evidence as to why they believe the official version. |
|
By:
Sunset Cristo Joined: 21 Jul 07
Replies: 2000 18 Oct 10 17:59 I dont have no conspiracy beliefs you prat but to call someone to yell some one they have a personality disorder because they dont trust people in power is insane. I cant refer who you were refering to but you a p1llock for saying it to him. And you need to grow up your sad very sad. Oh the irony of it. You are the one doing the name calling like a 5 year old, but I'm the one who needs to grow up.lolLaugh Your just a idiot ad i think most people on here will agree with me. Don't go telling people they have personality disorders because they don't trust the government thats the most stupid thing i have heard in a long time. And whoever you aimed it, Ive forgotten now didnt deserve it just because he doesnt trust the people in charge. You are a Troll. Are you going to get involved in this discussion or just keep making personal attacks on me? Get a life. |
|
By:
People are very willing to take orders from those in authority. This has been proven with scientific experiments. Its the old adage,some people are born to lead,and the others are born to be led,and that as sure as eggs is eggs will be exploited. Getting back to your previous point about Linda Norgrave I think there was a possibility the soldiers involved out of their own humanity would have owned up at some stage in time (or were just about to) so that might have been the motivation for the quick story change also |
|
By:
ROCKIN HORSE Joined: 29 Aug 02
Replies: 1691 19 Oct 10 18:20 People are very willing to take orders from those in authority. This has been proven with scientific experiments. Its the old adage,some people are born to lead,and the others are born to be led,and that as sure as eggs is eggs will be exploited. Getting back to your previous point about Linda Norgrave I think there was a possibility the soldiers involved out of their own humanity would have owned up at some stage in time (or were just about to) so that might have been the motivation for the quick story change also You could say this about any incident though. They all involve human beings. Imo most people are basically honest.All conspiracy's rely of people keeping quiet.Some believe the US government planned 9/11. They would have to be psychopaths to do that. Bush and his government might have been many thing, but they weren't psychopaths. |
|
By:
Psychopaths would probably lead their military into a war which would kill a hundreds of thousands human beings. Even if the accused terrorists were responsibe for 9/11, is there really a need for the huge amount of INNOCENT deaths? No Bush is no psychopath Sunset? im not convinced.
|
|
By:
Angel Gabriel Joined: 09 May 05
Replies: 568 19 Oct 10 21:54 Psychopaths would probably lead their military into a war which would kill a hundreds of thousands human beings. Even if the accused terrorists were responsibe for 9/11, is there really a need for the huge amount of INNOCENT deaths? No Bush is no psychopath Sunset? im not convinced. Not really sure what your trying to say here? As some one said on here, 3000 lives relatively speaking is not a huge amount. 6 millions death are, but then they just become a statistic. |
|
By:
It has been stated earlier on this thread that it is inconceivable that anyone inside the US state would knowingly be complicit in the deaths of 2,700 of their countrymen and women. Yet at the same time we know that elements within the same US state take decisions on military actions that they know will result in thousands of Americans deaths.
In fact more than twice as many Americans have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than died as a result of the 911 attacks. The latest total is 5,770 US deaths, 4,426 in Iraq and 1,344 in Afghanistan (http://icasualties.org/). Of course, these figures are dwarfed by the civilian deaths caused by these US-led wars. Estimates vary but the conservative estimates amount to over 900,000 deaths so far (http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html). Is it really inconceivable to think that these people, sufficiently convinced of a compelling rationale, would support an action such as 911 as a justification for a desired policy (regime change, war, making permanent bases in strategic locations, etc)? Get real. |
|
By:
so have we come to a conclusion yet peoples?
|
|
By:
secong coming. Joined: 31 Aug 07
Replies: 1193 21 Oct 10 01:32 so have we come to a conclusion yet peoples? Only one Sunset is a c0ck |
|
By:
It has been stated earlier on this thread that it is inconceivable that anyone inside the US state would knowingly be complicit in the deaths of 2,700 of their countrymen and women. Yet at the same time we know that elements within the same US state take decisions on military actions that they know will result in thousands of Americans deaths.
In fact more than twice as many Americans have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than died as a result of the 911 attacks. The latest total is 5,770 US deaths, 4,426 in Iraq and 1,344 in Afghanistan (http://icasualties.org/). Of course, these figures are dwarfed by the civilian deaths caused by these US-led wars. Estimates vary but the conservative estimates amount to over 900,000 deaths so far (http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html). Is it really inconceivable to think that these people, sufficiently convinced of a compelling rationale, would support an action such as 911 as a justification for a desired policy (regime change, war, making permanent bases in strategic locations, etc)? Get real. I agree with much of what you say. What I don't agree with is that the US government would have to stage 9/11 and kill thousands of it's own people. They didn't blame in on Iraq. It wasn't used as justification to invade Iraq. |
|
By:
second coming pretty much where I was at the beginning. Had some questions answered, but now I've got some more.
|
|
By:
Sunset: "I agree with much of what you say. What I don't agree with is that the US government would have to stage 9/11 and kill thousands of it's own people. They didn't blame in on Iraq. It wasn't used as justification to invade Iraq.
Yes it was. While you're right that at the time they didn't blame 911 on Iraq (their target at that time was the Taliban government of Afghanistan). Later the Bush regime linked 911 to Iraq to justify their next intended war, despite no evidence ever being provided to back up the claim. It was just another lie to justify war. As to whether they had to do this, of course they didn't, but it's not what you or I think that matters but what the planners considered expedient. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Casus_belli_and_rationale While it never made an explicit connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration repeatedly insinuated a link, thereby creating a false impression for the US public. Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, observed in March 2003 that "The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]". This was following a New York Times/CBS poll that showed 45% of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the September 11 atrocities. As the Christian Science Monitor observed at the time, while "Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda... the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime." The CSM went on to report that, while polling data collected "right after Sept. 11, 2001" showed that only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein, by January 2003 attitudes "had been transformed" with a Knight Ridder poll showing that 44% of Americans believed "most" or "some" of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.[74] The BBC has also noted that while President Bush, "never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington", he, "repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since September 11", adding that, "Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two." For instance, the BBC report quotes Colin Powell in February 2003, stating that, "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America." The same BBC report also noted the results of [b]a recent opinion poll, which suggested that "70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks."[75] Also in September 2003, the Boston Globe reported that "Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks."[76] A year later, presidential candidate John Kerry alleged that Cheney was continuing "to intentionally mislead the American public by drawing a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in an attempt to make the invasion of Iraq part of the global war on terror."[77] . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations_preparations_for_2003_invasion_of_Iraq "The U.S. government has tried to sell the notion that the war against Iraq is critical to the American "War on Terrorism": "In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front..." President Bush said on December 14, 2005 (Bush, George W. "President Discusses Iraqi Elections, Victory in the War on Terror." White House, Official Press Release). Also, the public was asked to believe that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was connected to 9/11: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001..." (Bush, George W. "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended" White House, Official Press Release, May 1, 2003]. In the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney suggested during a, "Meet the Press" interview that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attack: Iraq is, "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11." [Davies, Frank. "Study: Misperceptions About Iraq War Contributed to Support For It." Knight-Ridder, October 3, 2003.)" All just lies to justify war. |
|
By:
American-born Al-Qaeda terror leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, who met with Pentagon officials months after 9/11, is by no means the only patsy handler the Central Intelligence Agency has used over the years to oversee false flag attacks in America and around the world. In fact, just about every major terror attack has been run by an operative with direct ties to the US military-industrial complex.
As we reported this morning, Awlaki, the man who helped plot the aborted Christmas Day bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the Times Square bombing attempt, and who also preached to the alleged September 11 hijackers, dined at the Pentagon just months after 9/11 documents obtained by Fox News show. Awlaki is just the latest in a long list of Al-Qaeda double agents whose activity proves that the terror organization is little more than a front for the Pentagon and the US war machine. Let's take a look at just a handful of dozens of examples of terror masterminds working for intelligence agencies. http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/october2010/102110_front_group.htm |
|
By:
Sunset 9/11 maybe was not used as justification to invade Iraq, but what it did do was make sure everybody realised the need for `A war on terror` and that no citizen of anti muslim nations were safe. That is the emotional effect 9/11 had on people. They control the peoples emotions which then makes it easier to change civil liberties and invade countries. Dont forget the `war on terror` is now an eternal one` unless there is a solution.....now let me think.....how about a one world government?....yes a new world order...we need to control the world under one flag...have one currency,a one world army, we control the food industry through science, control the drug trade and then ID Card the worlds population, we may even micro chip the people because nobody is safe!!!!then we have total control....oh how we laugh. Wake up Cristo, its time to smell the huge pile of sheep **** we are all standing in.
|
|
By:
Sunset
So,when I say that governments lie to us,you conclude that I am paranoid. When you say (Oct 19th 17.57)"Of course they sometimes lie" that's just you being what exactly? From weeks ago:You asked what is my source for my assertion that we are fed different inflation and crime statistics,to bamboozle us. Readily available at the Home Office site - Recorded Crime Figures and British Crime Statistics.Inflation rates used by the government(s)?....CPI RPI RPIX. |
|
By:
Sunset: "I agree with much of what you say. What I don't agree with is that the US government would have to stage 9/11 and kill thousands of it's own people. They didn't blame in on Iraq. It wasn't used as justification to invade Iraq. Yes it was. While you're right that at the time they didn't blame 911 on Iraq (their target at that time was the Taliban government of Afghanistan). Later the Bush regime linked 911 to Iraq to justify their next intended war, despite no evidence ever being provided to back up the claim.
This is true. When I say they didn't link them I mean they didn't fake evidence to link them, which is what many seem to think happened with 9/11 It was just another lie to justify war. As to whether they had to do this, of course they didn't, but it's not what you or I think that matters but what the planners considered expedient. . You haven't provided any evidence though that it was planned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Casus_belli_and_rationale While it never made an explicit connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration repeatedly insinuated a link, thereby creating a false impression for the US public. Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, observed in March 2003 that "The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]". This was following a New York Times/CBS poll that showed 45% of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the September 11 atrocities. As the Christian Science Monitor observed at the time, while "Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda... the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime." The CSM went on to report that, while polling data collected "right after Sept. 11, 2001" showed that only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein, by January 2003 attitudes "had been transformed" with a Knight Ridder poll showing that 44% of Americans believed "most" or "some" of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.[74] This does show that the sheep can easily be deceived. It has been proved scientifically that people will rarely question those in authority.Those in authority will be well aware of these experiments. This is why people are ,so willing to go to war. You only have to look at the First World War to see that. This shows that there was no need to go to the elaborate plans that some believe the US government went to over 9/11. The BBC has also noted that while President Bush, "never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington", he, "repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since September 11", adding that, "Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two." For instance, the BBC report quotes Colin Powell in February 2003, stating that, "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America." The same BBC report also noted the results of [b]a recent opinion poll, which suggested that "70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks."[75] Also in September 2003, the Boston Globe reported that "Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks."[76] A year later, presidential candidate John Kerry alleged that Cheney was continuing "to intentionally mislead the American public by drawing a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in an attempt to make the invasion of Iraq part of the global war on terror."[77]. I agree that that the US government tried to deceive the gullible public.Iraq had though been listed as a state sponsor of terrorism long before 9/11. Iraq Iraq had been listed as a State sponsor of international terrorism by the United States since 1990,[38] when Saddam Hussein fell out of US favor. The regime of Saddam Hussein proved a continuing problem for the UN and Iraq’s neighbors in its use of chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations_preparations_for_2003_invasion_of_Iraq "The U.S. government has tried to sell the notion that the war against Iraq is critical to the American "War on Terrorism": "In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front..." President Bush said on December 14, 2005 (Bush, George W. "President Discusses Iraqi Elections, Victory in the War on Terror." White House, Official Press Release). Also, the public was asked to believe that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was connected to 9/11: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001..." (Bush, George W. "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended" White House, Official Press Release, May 1, 2003]. In the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney suggested during a, "Meet the Press" interview that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attack: Iraq is, "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11." [Davies, Frank. "Study: Misperceptions About Iraq War Contributed to Support For It." Knight-Ridder, October 3, 2003.)" All just lies to justify war. Agree they do lie. All human beings lie.Doesn't prove anything regarding the US government being behind 9/11 though. Interesting they you use Wikipedia as a source. People keep telling me that it's crap and not reliable. What are your thoughts on the matter? Also earlier in the thread I think you said that that you was 95% convinced that the US government was behind 9/11. What is the evidence that lead you to that conclusion? |
|
By:
Sunset 9/11 maybe was not used as justification to invade Iraq, but what it did do was make sure everybody realised the need for `A war on terror` and that no citizen of anti muslim nations were safe. That is the emotional effect 9/11 had on people. They control the peoples emotions which then makes it easier to change civil liberties and invade countries. Dont forget the `war on terror` is now an eternal one` unless there is a solution.
I agree with this to some extent, but this doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that the US government planned 9/11. It doesn't even prove they know it was going to happen.Just because they used it to some extent does not prove they caused it.Only real solution is for the US to win over the hearts and minds of the terrorists and those that support them. The people of Iraq have turned against Al Queda in Iraq. This could happen in Afghanistan. ....now let me think.....how about a one world government?....yes a new world order...we need to control the world under one flag...have one currency,a one world army, You think that the US government would go along with this. They don't even listen to the UN. If they want to invade a country they will. we control the food industry through science, control the drug trade and then ID Card the worlds population, we may even micro chip the people because nobody is safe!!!!then we have total control....oh how we laugh. Wake up Cristo, its time to smell the huge pile of sheep **** we are all standing in. It is you who needs to wake up.You have again provided no evidence. Yes the UN is a step towards a one world government and yes there are people that would like a one world government, but I don't think it is going to happen any time soon. Country's are to selfish to ever agree to a one world government.It would have to be imposed on them some how or if there was an alien threat then all country's would come together as one.There is no evidence of a shadowy global elite though and you haven't provided one shred of evidence of one. |
|
By:
Ha Genes back. Thought you had done on here. Just can't keep away.
Sunset So,when I say that governments lie to us,you conclude that I am paranoid. Do you believe they lie to us all the time or just some times? When you say (Oct 19th 17.57)"Of course they sometimes lie" that's just you being what exactly? Realistic. Any one that thinks that politicians all ways tell the truth are very gullible. It's doubtful if any one believes this any more in this country at least after the parliamentary expenses scandal. From weeks ago:You asked what is my source for my assertion that we are fed different inflation and crime statistics,to bamboozle us. Readily available at the Home Office site - Recorded Crime Figures and British Crime Statistics.Inflation rates used by the government(s)?....CPI RPI RPIX. Could you please give examples of these different crime statistics? |
|
By:
Torture, killing, children shot – and how the US tried to keep it all quiet
The largest leak in history reveals the true extent of the bloodshed unleashed by the decision to go to war in Iraq – and adds at least 15,000 to its death toll So now we begin to know the full extent of what Tony Blair called the blood price. A detainee tortured with live electrical wires here, children shot by US troops at a checkpoint there, insurgents using children to carry out suicide bombings somewhere else; on and on, through 391,832 documents. At the Pentagon, these messages were the day-to-day commonplaces of staff inboxes; for Iraqis, they detail, in the emotionless jargon of the US military, nothing less than the hacking open of a nation's veins. Today, seven and a half years on from the order to invade, the largest leak in history has shown, far more than has been hitherto known, just what was unleashed by that declaration of war. The Iraqi security services tortured hundreds, and the US military watched, noted and emailed, but rarely intervened. A US helicopter gunship crew were ordered to shoot insurgents trying to surrender. A doctor sold al-Qa'ida a list of female patients with learning difficulties so they could be duped into being suicide bombers. A private US company, which made millions of dollars from the outsourcing of security duties, killed civilians. And the Americans, who have always claimed never to count civilian deaths, were in fact secretly logging them. At a conservative estimate, the new documents add at least 15,000 to the war's death toll. Another kick in the nuts for Sunset Cristo's you are all paronoid theory |
|
By:
SC
Right.So now we both agree that governments do lie sometimes.That's all I've ever said.Our only disagreement is that I believe they lied about 9/11 and you don't. I also note that you have implicitly accepted my assertion about inflation statistics,and in effect,my point about different crime statistics - by asking for examples of them. |
|
By:
*Paranoid theory ffs
|
|
By:
Torture, killing, children shot – and how the US tried to keep it all quiet
The largest leak in history reveals the true extent of the bloodshed unleashed by the decision to go to war in Iraq – and adds at least 15,000 to its death toll Thomas Jefferson said, A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!" — Thomas Jefferson As I have said before I believe the government do lie to us.I try to decide when they are lying to us and when they aren't. I look at the evidence to decide this. I look at those who are independent from the government who have examined the evidence. For example those who have examined the Bin Laden tapes.And confirmed they are genuine. This is only the same as the Pentagon papers.Nothing new here.War is a terrible thing and should be avoided. It should always be a last resort.Do you think we didn't commit war crimes in the Second World War? No of this is new.We are not much better than terrorists.We torture people. We just don't do it as much.It's not as black and white as the US and UK keep telling us.That doesn't mean that they faked 9/11 though.I'll believe that when Wikileaks release some credible evidence that shows Bush planned 9/11 or covered it up.This wikileak actually shows that the US government has difficulty keeping things secret. So now we begin to know the full extent of what Tony Blair called the blood price. A detainee tortured with live electrical wires here, children shot by US troops at a checkpoint there, insurgents using children to carry out suicide bombings somewhere else; on and on, through 391,832 documents. At the Pentagon, these messages were the day-to-day commonplaces of staff inboxes; for Iraqis, they detail, in the emotionless jargon of the US military, nothing less than the hacking open of a nation's veins. Today, seven and a half years on from the order to invade, the largest leak in history has shown, far more than has been hitherto known, just what was unleashed by that declaration of war. The Iraqi security services tortured hundreds, and the US military watched, noted and emailed, but rarely intervened. A US helicopter gunship crew were ordered to shoot insurgents trying to surrender. A doctor sold al-Qa'ida a list of female patients with learning difficulties so they could be duped into being suicide bombers. A private US company, which made millions of dollars from the outsourcing of security duties, killed civilians. And the Americans, who have always claimed never to count civilian deaths, were in fact secretly logging them. At a conservative estimate, the new documents add at least 15,000 to the war's death toll. Another kick in the nuts for Sunset Cristo's you are all paronoid theory |
|
By:
SC
Right.So now we both agree that governments do lie sometimes.That's all I've ever said. And I have never said otherwise.You and slarty seem to assume that because I believe the official version of 9/11 that I just believe everything our government tell us. Like some gullible bafun.We are not so far apart, but on 9/11 we are miles apart. Our only disagreement is that I believe they lied about 9/11 and you don't. Agreed and you if I understand you correctly you base this on the your assumption that the Pentagon should have had better CCTV and you also assert that the witnesses are lying , though you haven't provided a scrap of evidence for this belief. I also note that you have implicitly accepted my assertion about inflation statistics True and in effect,my point about different crime statistics - by asking for examples of them No. I've asked for example because I couldn't find the information on the site you gave. It might be there, but I couldn't find it. |
|
By:
The BCS measures the amount of crime in England and Wales. This includes crimes which may not have been reported to the police, or recorded by them. It thus provides an important alternative to police recorded crime statistics. Without the BCS the government would have no information on these unreported crimes. The BCS also helps identify those most at risk of different types of crime. This is used in designing and informing crime prevention programmes. It is also used to assess people's attitudes to crime and towards the Criminal Justice System. It is one of the major sources of information about levels of crime, public attitudes to crime and other Home Office issues.
Police recorded crime Police recorded crime statistics provide a good measure of trends in well-reported crimes, are an important indicator of police workload, and can be used for local crime-pattern analysis. They do not, however, include crimes that have not been reported to the police or that the police decide not to record. Police recording practice is governed by the Home Office Counting Rules and the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS). |
|
By:
Are we all done then at 2,161 posts?
Do I hear 2,162 anywhere? Anyone? Going once then at 2,161 |