Ah, I see you refuse to enter actual debate on the subject..........gee, I wonder why that is?
Al-Qaeda warns Canada it will attack us like 911.
- Thread starter Sassylassie
- Start date
Ah, I see you refuse to enter actual debate on the subject..........gee, I wonder why that is?
Colpy
Ahem....I think Question Everything only has Questions and no Answers
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuestionEverything
Haha, too funny. No nerve touched.....just trying to reply to all of the fantasies you and others tend to peddle in here as concrete fact.
Is that all you people have....Post articles? Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Harper or Ignatieff or Layton is really god.
Originally Posted by Colpy
Ah, I see you refuse to enter actual debate on the subject..........gee, I wonder why that is?
Yesterday 07:03 PM
Ahem....I think Question Everything only has Questions and no Answers
i never thought we should be in afghanistan in the first place. now that somebody is threatening us for being there i'd really like to see us get out of there. we don't need this.
When you say "conspiracy theory nutbars" about all that disagree with you, I suppose that is a debate to you, right? But when someone points out the deficiencies in logic of your delusional fantasies, as fed to you by a biased right-wing media, then that is what....name-calling? Insults?
Hypocrisy, thine alias is Colpy.
Calling me a "conspiracy theory nutbar" and saying I am wrong, does not make it so. You need a fact or two.
No building, before or since the 9/11 WTC operation, has ever burned down or imploded, or even weakened to the point of collapse, by an airplane hitting it. None....not one. The kind of steel used in the WTC needs a temperature far, far higher than that at which jet fuel burns, for it to melt or weaken.
Clearly it was an inside job. The WTC was shut before 9/11 and regular personnel were not allowed into the building. Most realists agree that this was the time when the explosives were placed on the premises, including WTC building #7.
Anti-NATO? That's a new one. Oh well, c'est le vie. Anyways, I was simply responding to the subject matter in this thread. I would suggest that if you find this topic old and boring, then you should stop following it.
9/11 is likely the single most important event to effect the world in the past 20 years, and hes the power to change the world as we know it. We are witnessing these changes all over the world now. None of them are good. And that is all the more reason to keep on exploring the issues it presents.
How can you get tired of losing your freedoms? Not that you actually had any, mind you....
this was the first post questioneverythin' so your goobly-gook hasn't even touched the topic...
and the NATO referance is because you are not agreeing with NATO that the war was declared on NATO, vesavie the attack and the declaration by OZ beenhaddin' ...
Sorry, but you are wrong yet again. My very first posting in this thread was to point out what a joke the National Post is, and that it is not to be trusted as a source for anything except mis-info and/or propaganda. That was 100% on-topic.
Then Colpy started in on his X-files trip. Then I replied to The Prject Man's posting about the WTC buildings. So....sorry you are wrong on all counts, little buddy.
The war was not declared on NATO. The invasion was initiated by the US. It was planned long before 911, as you know. And if you don't know, then you are woefully misinformed as to why Canada is in there fighting as an American proxy, under the guise of a NATO exercise.
Kindly show me where Afghanistan declared war on NATO. Surely you can back up such a proclamation.
first of all l am not your little buddy, and so don't insult me or l will have to report it...
second of all, the NATO information is on another thread, l noticed you just joined so when l get around to it l'll let you know where this argument is...
second of all, the NATO information is on another thread, l noticed you just joined so when l get around to it l'll let you know where this argument is...
If you read the first 2 or 3 pages of posts, you will see information pertinent to your proof wanted. Article 5 clearly states that an attack on one nation warrants a response from all NATO nations. Furthermore, the charter states that any force deemed necessary including military action can be undertook. With Mr. Bin Laden having a safe place to train within the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, that was justification for us to go in there. Do you think the Taliban would have stepped aside and let us go in after the terrorists?
No problem, little buddy. I suppose that you referring to me as an anti-NATO nutbar is not an insult, right? You need to gain a better knowledge of fair play, and delve a little less into hypocrisy. I called you no names, exactly the opposite of what you have done.
Please let me know when it is convenient for you to support your position with a fact. I would love to hear whatever you come up with....at your convenience.....of course. I wouldn't want to rush you....before you are ready.
I supported that issue with a fact. We are part of the NATO organization, our citizens were murdered in an attack. An attack on any NATO nation is an attack on all NATO nations. Our interests are mutual in Afghanistan.
What is your opposition to the Afghanistan mission?
What is your opposition to the Afghanistan mission?
Notwithstanding the Taliban's offer to hand over Bin Laden if the US would supply proof of their accusations against him (then never did), the US had planned to attack Afghanistan well before 9/11. The 9/11 inside job allowed the US regime to start its invasion, based on false reasons.
If I got a buddy to hit me, and then went up to a cop and said that you hit me, would that make the allegations of assault true, even if the cop was hoodwinked? If I then assaulted you, would that legitimize that assault in any moral or ethical way?
(borrowed from elsewhere)....this kind of puts the whole Afghanistan farce into perspective:
Bush, oil and Taliban
Further light on secret contacts between the Bush administration and the Taliban regime is shed by a book released November 15 in France, entitled Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth, written by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. Brisard is a former French secret service agent.
The two French authors write that the Bush administration was willing to accept the Taliban regime, despite the charges of sponsoring terrorism, if it cooperated with plans for the development of the oil resources of Central Asia.
Until August, they claim, the US government saw the Taliban “as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia.” It was only when the Taliban refused to accept US conditions that “this rationale of energy security changed into a military one.”
By way of corroboration, one should note the curious fact that neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban regime. Such a designation would have made it impossible for an American oil or construction company to sign a deal with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.
Talks between the Bush administration and the Taliban began in February 2001, shortly after Bush’s inauguration. A Taliban emissary arrived in Washington in March with presents for the new chief executive, including an expensive Afghan carpet. But the talks themselves were less than cordial. Brisard said, “At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs’.”
As long as the possibility of a pipeline deal remained, the White House stalled any further investigation into the activities of Osama bin Laden, Brisard and Dasquie write. They report that John O’Neill, deputy director of the FBI, resigned in July in protest over this obstruction. O’Neill told them in an interview, “the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” In a strange coincidence, O’Neill accepted a position as security chief of the World Trade Center after leaving the FBI, and was killed on September 11.
Confirming Naiz Naik’s account of the secret Berlin meeting, the two French authors add that there was open discussion of the need for the Taliban to facilitate a pipeline from Kazakhstan in order to insure US and international recognition. The increasingly acrimonious US-Taliban talks were broken off August 2, after a final meeting between US envoy Christina Rocca and a Taliban representative in Islamabad. Two months later the United States was bombing Kabul.
The entire problem is that the attack was a false-flag operation. It was not an attack by the terrorists named. It was an inside operation. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) even goes into what needs to be done in the Middle East for the US to exert it's influence there. It needed a "Pearl Harbor" type of incident. Conveniently it came along on Bush's watch. Do you believe in that coincidence? There are just too many coincidences in all of this. I suppose the opposite of a conspiracy theorist is a concidence theorist.
Canada should not be there. We are fighting a proxy battle for the US, for it to prop up warlords and oil interests, and the Bush crime family. How can we, in good conscience, send our children to die in a battle that was based on false premises?
We should support our troops by bringing them home, and not setting them up as cannon fodder for what will ultimately be a battle between the US and Israel versus Russia, China, and most of the rest of the world.....all for oil and natural gas. There is no noble cause in this. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking there is one here.
Our kids are dying for Exxon. Heck, not even Petro-Canada.....but Exxon.
Considering that both authors of that book have since made apologies because of inaccurate information, I wouldn't hold that book to be an accurate representation. Much like the inaccurate information about WMD's in Iraq, but that is anothe rstory.
Coincidences have a long sad histroy of being created where there are loose associations. If these authors had any credible information, or for that matter anyone else, Bush would have been impeached long ago. The thing about these conspiracies is, if they are that obvious to you, then there must be others out there who are drawing the same conclusions. How is it that opposing politicians have not recovered these facts? You would think it would be common knowledge by now if it were indeed the case.
Like everything else in this sordid situation, unless we are an intimate part of the goings on, all we can do is look at what's out there, and try to filter the info as best as we can. I question everything. Que bono. Who benefits? Follow the money, is always a good start.
Too many people have died as a result of 9/11 and numerous US actions since then. Before we send opur children off to die in this mess, we owe it to ourselves and them to be certain of what we are asking them to die for, and to ensure that it is righteous.
Simply to take Bush's word, Harper's word, Martin's word, or the National Post's word (or any other media source for that matter), is simply asking to much, in my honest opinion.
The information is out there. Certainly not all of it is public, but enough of it is so that we can connect the dots in what is probably a good enough idea of what is the truth. Or at least what we believe to be the truth, which is really what counts.
Regarding conspiracies, look at JFK's assasination. I doubt that most people believe in the Oswald/magic_bullet theory. We have had 42 years of info out there. Many people believe Poppy Bush had a part in it while he was in the CIA. Who is powerful enough to go up against him? Who can point the finger at him, and live to tell about it? Even if it wasn't Bush, then someone in some position of power had a hand in it, either inside or outside the government, yet nobody has come forth to point out who it was. Death can be a pwerful deterrent.
I have no faith in the political system. Particlarly in the US, I believe that the Republicans and the Democrats are essentially 2 PR firms for the same ruling elite. How else do you explain Kerry's total capitulation just as Ohio's massive voter fraud irregularities were coming to light in the last presidential election? Look at Scalia's deliberate appointment of Bush as President, in the elction before that. There you had the ruling elite coming right out and say, too bad suckers, but this guy is your leader...nuthin' you can do about it. And they were right.
Voting machines are again fixing elections down south. Did you know we use some voting machines up here? And we are having the same "problems". I believe it was in Quebec. The results were shown to be untrustworthy, but guess what? The results stand. Imagine that. Democracy, USA-style. We've got it up here too.
Even here, what is the difference between Harper and Martin? Martin (and Chretien), so-called Liberals, sent out troops to Afghanistan anyways. Harper wants to keep 'em there. Ignatieff and Rae will not pull them out.
There is no difference, in practical terms. No one, particularly in Canada, is strong enough to stand up to the US and Israel. People get killed for doing that. Even Bush biographers get "suicided". I think there has been something like 6 authors of Bush biographies that suddenly "killed" themselves. It's a dangerous business.
This is Orwell's 1984 come to fruition, let's not kid ourselves about that. A person is either with the ruling elite, or with the sheeple, or dead. A little stark, but that's it in a nutshell.