|
PS: in reading through a good portion of psylos posts, while he does have a great deal of 'information' be it valid or not, his is by far the most biased and obstinate case i've seen in a while for a person who is trying to make a point, or rather, argue it!
i would welcome you to join the discussion. my explanation of 9-11 is only half done.
i have explained how the bush adminstration is largely influenced by the PNAC. many in the bush administration are members of the PNAC. by understanding the PNAC, we can understand where the bush administratinos policy is coming from. i have supplied several links to this topic, if u wish to read them. in short, the PNAC beleives in using the US military as a tool to further secure the US as the global super power. as i have said before, there beliefs are only a word short of emperialism. now take into consideration, that the PNAC has been around before bush became president. the PNAC specifically called for the overthrowing of iraq as a strategic tool to have political influence in the middle east. they even wrote a letter to clinton, trying to pursuade him of this. i have already posted this letter, do read it, and take special not of who signed it, and there position in the bush administration. the PNAC shows a clear agenda to control the middle east. you can not refute this, for my "unreliable source" is the PNAC's own web site. i will also make note that the bush administrations resource energy plan, included iraq oil feilds. this was writtin before 9-11.
now for a moment, forget 9-11 happened. just think about time after 9-11, as if it did not exists. the agenda set forth by the PNAC is in effect, full swing in fact. now, back to reality, do u think that it is possible that this could have happened WITHOUT 9-11? bush sr specifically said that he did not invade iraq after freeing kuwait, becuase of lack of support. clinton, whos policy towards iraq was a continuation of bush sr's, said the same thing. so apparently it is the case, that given the pre-911 situation, the agenda of the PNAC could not go into effect. regardless of what u feel about 9-11, one has to admit that the bush administration NEEDED 9-11 inorder to fulfil plans it ALREADY had. the PNAC even says this, in which i have already highlighted, about another pearl harbor needed in order to put forth there agenda in a reasonable amount of time. i wil once again remind u that a president can only serve for 8 years, which is a relativly short oppertunity. before i continue, i expect somebody to respond to this, becuase as of now, it has been ignored.
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
psylo, if you would simply take a look and reflect at all the random shit you presented throughout this thread , including links and sub topics such as the former post, i would believe that you too would be astonished at the shere magnitude of jumble.. This is why i am gonna propose that if you're THAT interested in this conspiracy shit, which apparently you are.., i ardently recommend that you gather all the existing information you hold and freakin write an essay that is coherent and flows or establish a web page. EMPHASIS on the flows, because if it doesnt flow at which point right now it doesnt, you really have no grounds of arguement because you're basically throwing out random rebuttals everytime someone disputes your opinion and your shit is scattered all over the place. At the very least make SOME kind of effort in some sense of putting together the 'big picture' , detailed and quite thoroughly supported with what you find as the most trusted of sources. Then maybe i could make some sense of your Iraq / Afghanistan / Saudia Arabia / North Korea / US Government / Bush Administration conspiracy. Until then no more of this nonsense 
|
lock this thread or else it will never stop ahhhhhhhhhhh
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 06:53 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +PS: in reading through a good portion of psylos posts, while he does have a great deal of 'information' be it valid or not, his is by far the most biased and obstinate case i've seen in a while for a person who is trying to make a point, or rather, argue it! i would welcome you to join the discussion. my explanation of 9-11 is only half done. i have explained how the bush adminstration is largely influenced by the PNAC. many in the bush administration are members of the PNAC. by understanding the PNAC, we can understand where the bush administratinos policy is coming from. i have supplied several links to this topic, if u wish to read them. in short, the PNAC beleives in using the US military as a tool to further secure the US as the global super power. as i have said before, there beliefs are only a word short of emperialism. now take into consideration, that the PNAC has been around before bush became president. the PNAC specifically called for the overthrowing of iraq as a strategic tool to have political influence in the middle east. they even wrote a letter to clinton, trying to pursuade him of this. i have already posted this letter, do read it, and take special not of who signed it, and there position in the bush administration. the PNAC shows a clear agenda to control the middle east. you can not refute this, for my "unreliable source" is the PNAC's own web site. i will also make note that the bush administrations resource energy plan, included iraq oil feilds. this was writtin before 9-11. now for a moment, forget 9-11 happened. just think about time after 9-11, as if it did not exists. the agenda set forth by the PNAC is in effect, full swing in fact. now, back to reality, do u think that it is possible that this could have happened WITHOUT 9-11? bush sr specifically said that he did not invade iraq after freeing kuwait, becuase of lack of support. clinton, whos policy towards iraq was a continuation of bush sr's, said the same thing. so apparently it is the case, that given the pre-911 situation, the agenda of the PNAC could not go into effect. regardless of what u feel about 9-11, one has to admit that the bush administration NEEDED 9-11 inorder to fulfil plans it ALREADY had. the PNAC even says this, in which i have already highlighted, about another pearl harbor needed in order to put forth there agenda in a reasonable amount of time. i wil once again remind u that a president can only serve for 8 years, which is a relativly short oppertunity. before i continue, i expect somebody to respond to this, becuase as of now, it has been ignored.
Regardless of whether they needed or not, you cannot simply come out and ASSUME basically 90% of your arguement, being that PNAC somehow intervened in some particular affairs somewhere along the line pre 9-11 and instigated or aided the progression of terrorism, quite simply put i dont even know what the hell you're trying to say. They needed terrorism , terrorism occured , so therefore they're held accountable ? Sorry but that is horribly faulty logic, if that is indeed what you're saying. You're going from Point A to Point B to Point R. I need a car, i enter a sweepstakes and win a car, therefore i rigged the sweepstakes in order to obtain it? No sir.
Edit: i dont see how you could possibly overlook that, i think your bias is once again getting the better of you. Also about 50% of your arguement is missing, if that organization had some relations to terrorism how could it even BEGIN to go about, well, everything....from executing it or perhaps aiding it to it(the relations) going unoticed. Afterall, there have been SO many conspiracies concerning 9-11 without even that much substantial evidence of any outside 'source' intervening, imagine the possibilities if some actual credible evidence surfaced in those regards. If an outside source(such as the government) intervened in 9-11 it would be practically impossible for the operation to go covertly, no matter the extent to which things like this are classified, something of this magnitude would surface, its just human nature. Besides an operation of this magnitude, lets say planting bombs at the base of the towers to aid the collapse(which i am HIGHLY skeptical of for several resaons), would literally be practically impossible to execute because the government and the government only would have to be involved, obviously, and a task such as this requires MUCH effort manual labor and preplanning(engineering for one) in which case i simply doubt the government could handle alone, and as i stated earlier, it would be impossible for it to be kept secret if there were others involved outside of the government.. 
|
MURICA15980 Posts
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 04 2003 06:29 iGgs wrote:
see, thats the initial and CRITICAL fault of most of you, you discard everything as propoganda,
that's just about all I read. why? read the following. Pay attention to the bold:
"or you are a trusting fool whose worse than those who buy the bush administration's propaganda word for word. "
then i respond by saying:
"that's impossible. A guy who does research on a matter to seek the truth is far better than anybody who just sits there and listens to propaganda."
He was talking about propaganda, so I also talked about propaganda. He refered to it as propaganda, and so did I.
|
On September 04 2003 07:06 iGgs wrote: psylo, if you would simply take a look and reflect at all the random shit you presented throughout this thread , including links and sub topics such as the former post, i would believe that you too would be astonished at the shere magnitude of jumble.. This is why i am gonna propose that if you're THAT interested in this conspiracy shit, which apparently you are.., i ardently recommend that you gather all the existing information you hold and freakin write an essay that is coherent and flows or establish a web page. EMPHASIS on the flows, because if it doesnt flow at which point right now it doesnt, you really have no grounds of arguement because you're basically throwing out random rebuttals everytime someone disputes your opinion and your shit is scattered all over the place. At the very least make SOME kind of effort in some sense of putting together the 'big picture' , detailed and quite thoroughly supported with what you find as the most trusted of sources. Then maybe i could make some sense of your Iraq / Afghanistan / Saudia Arabia / North Korea / US Government / Bush Administration conspiracy. Until then no more of this nonsense
u make a good point, that this topic is jumbled, and i agree. that has been a problem for me. it has been jumbled becuase people are shooting this in many directions(naturaully so). it would be in my best interest in terms of showing my point, that i address these issues, rather than make it appear as if i cant defend my perspective. i have already said that my post fall into 2 categories. one would be refuting posts. the other being explaining my point. i would hope u can differentiate between the 2. the last post, was explaining my point. when i am done explaining the "big picture", i will provide an outline for my side of the debate. but u have to understand that this is a large topic. i have been reading about this since, well... 9-11. i have gathered much information and wish to use most of it. becuase of the size, and mulitiple aspects of the situation, it is only logical to break it down into various more specific points. this is how u write a paper, how u code software, how u plan a business model, and it is how i shall debate my point. if u have not read the entirety of the debate, then plz do before making assumptions about the depth of what i know. i said in the opening post, that i did contemplate writing something on the matter, but given the much information already out there, i deemed it no use duplicating work that has already been done. if u do not understand how one point connects to the other, then simply ask, and i shall explain.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
i think the russians were behind it
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 04 2003 07:06 iGgs wrote: Until then no more of this nonsense
i couldn't find better words to describe your posts as well.
|
Regardless of whether they needed or not, you cannot simply come out and ASSUME basically 90% of your arguement, being that PNAC somehow intervened in some particular affairs somewhere along the line pre 9-11 and instigated or aided the progression of terrorism, quite simply put i dont even know what the hell you're trying to say. They needed terrorism , terrorism occured , so therefore they're held accountable ? Sorry but that is horribly faulty logic, if that is indeed what you're saying. You're going from Point A to Point B to Point R.
this is not the entirety of my argument. i am was trying to set the frame work for the issue. u said u wanted to see the "big picture". i explained one aspect of it. the idealogical momentum that was pushing forward by the administration, could have only gone forward if there was a 9-11. now, what if there WASNT? what would they do? go back to the drawing board? completly change there mindstate on the world? u are right that from this, u can not just assume anything specific. but lets discuss the big picture, before we discuss the more specific. atleast admit, that i am right, that the bush adminitration could not have finished plans, that they already had, unless there was a 9-11. if u think i am wrong, explain. this is a debate, i welcome differant perspectives.
|
On September 03 2003 15:32 BlackJack wrote:
There is a difference between bush letting it happen and bush wanting it to happen. I am convinced of neither. You might be able to prove that he let it happen because of errors but that fact is, he didn't want 9/11 to happen. Plain in simple.
Psylo - you make good points and you can clearly keep up with the debate
Klogon - I think this guy thinks it is a conspiracy because he doesnt like the war in iraq
Demonic - just an idiot that agrees with psylo and because he is too ignorrant to keep up with the debate says stupid things like "I am going to give up on you" or "BUSH KNEW" When you ask him how he will reply "BUSH KNEW"
lol what makes u think anyone cares about ur retarded opinion of them??
|
[quote]Its funny that psylo cries about people critiquing his links, when he goes ahead and does the same to you.
Oh and badteeth, Please enlightened me on the current situation, I have no problem destroying you in this catergory again like I did in the other threads, I swear you used that same bullshit when you were caught talking out of your ass and you couldn't respond. "Oh, this is useless I won't argue with you anymore." badteeth you're just like that chirping bird.[quote]
Pedantic idiot. Iraq was the only country to receive euros for its oil, an idea that prooved very lucrative. Iraq was the only one to implement this enw strategy but other countries looked on with a lot of interest. The illegitemate invasion of iraq will mean that soon the iraqi people will receive dollars for their oil again.
Wich brings me to my second point. Under the food for oil project the us will export so much oil that the monopoly of opec will be threatened since iraq is not a particpant in that alliance. Prices of oil will begin to fall as soon as a normal amount of oil starts flowing out of iraq.
If you either
A go of on one of your silly rants about how much you think you own me
b provide no factual or sensible information
c try to insult me again
d wander of to your fairy tale country filled with woms
e go on about the horrible suffering of the iraqi people
i will not respond.
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 07:29 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +Regardless of whether they needed or not, you cannot simply come out and ASSUME basically 90% of your arguement, being that PNAC somehow intervened in some particular affairs somewhere along the line pre 9-11 and instigated or aided the progression of terrorism, quite simply put i dont even know what the hell you're trying to say. They needed terrorism , terrorism occured , so therefore they're held accountable ? Sorry but that is horribly faulty logic, if that is indeed what you're saying. You're going from Point A to Point B to Point R. this is not the entirety of my argument. i am was trying to set the frame work for the issue. u said u wanted to see the "big picture". i explained one aspect of it. the idealogical momentum that was pushing forward by the administration, could have only gone forward if there was a 9-11. now, what if there WASNT? what would they do? go back to the drawing board? completly change there mindstate on the world? u are right that from this, u can not just assume anything specific. but lets discuss the big picture, before we discuss the more specific. atleast admit, that i am right, that the bush adminitration could not have finished plans, that they already had, unless there was a 9-11. if u think i am wrong, explain. this is a debate, i welcome differant perspectives.
i stopped reading when you said that is not the entirety of my arguement. You do realize that when debating something of this importance, "setting the framework" doesnt fucking cut it? Anyways, how can you dissprove what i said? About the jumping to obviously illogical conclusions...
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 07:22 Klogon wrote: Show nested quote +On September 04 2003 06:29 iGgs wrote:
see, thats the initial and CRITICAL fault of most of you, you discard everything as propoganda, that's just about all I read. why? read the following. Pay attention to the bold: "or you are a trusting fool whose worse than those who buy the bush administration's propaganda word for word. " then i respond by saying: "that's impossible. A guy who does research on a matter to seek the truth is far better than anybody who just sits there and listens to propaganda." He was talking about propaganda, so I also talked about propaganda. He refered to it as propaganda, and so did I.
good job, if you read further you would have come across , and i quote,
"until you can concisely narrow discrete portions of an administrations policy as "propoganda", you cannot judge in general that all of it is or isnt bs, and at the very least cannot not argue distinct aspects of it."
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 07:28 Klogon wrote: i couldn't find better words to describe your posts as well.
thanks for the useless remark!
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 07:29 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +Regardless of whether they needed or not, you cannot simply come out and ASSUME basically 90% of your arguement, being that PNAC somehow intervened in some particular affairs somewhere along the line pre 9-11 and instigated or aided the progression of terrorism, quite simply put i dont even know what the hell you're trying to say. They needed terrorism , terrorism occured , so therefore they're held accountable ? Sorry but that is horribly faulty logic, if that is indeed what you're saying. You're going from Point A to Point B to Point R. this is not the entirety of my argument. i am was trying to set the frame work for the issue. u said u wanted to see the "big picture". i explained one aspect of it. the idealogical momentum that was pushing forward by the administration, could have only gone forward if there was a 9-11. now, what if there WASNT? what would they do? go back to the drawing board? completly change there mindstate on the world? u are right that from this, u can not just assume anything specific. but lets discuss the big picture, before we discuss the more specific. atleast admit, that i am right, that the bush adminitration could not have finished plans, that they already had, unless there was a 9-11. if u think i am wrong, explain. this is a debate, i welcome differant perspectives.
perhaps i should have elaborated.....the big picture of this thread, not of that particular section
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Bah, I decided to stop posting further on this topic (flame me if I fall into temtation and post any more) because it seems anytime I do, it always leads to more flaming. And I feel like flaming as well right now. So I'll just passivily read now -_-;
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 07:23 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +On September 04 2003 07:06 iGgs wrote: psylo, if you would simply take a look and reflect at all the random shit you presented throughout this thread , including links and sub topics such as the former post, i would believe that you too would be astonished at the shere magnitude of jumble.. This is why i am gonna propose that if you're THAT interested in this conspiracy shit, which apparently you are.., i ardently recommend that you gather all the existing information you hold and freakin write an essay that is coherent and flows or establish a web page. EMPHASIS on the flows, because if it doesnt flow at which point right now it doesnt, you really have no grounds of arguement because you're basically throwing out random rebuttals everytime someone disputes your opinion and your shit is scattered all over the place. At the very least make SOME kind of effort in some sense of putting together the 'big picture' , detailed and quite thoroughly supported with what you find as the most trusted of sources. Then maybe i could make some sense of your Iraq / Afghanistan / Saudia Arabia / North Korea / US Government / Bush Administration conspiracy. Until then no more of this nonsense u make a good point, that this topic is jumbled, and i agree. that has been a problem for me. it has been jumbled becuase people are shooting this in many directions(naturaully so). it would be in my best interest in terms of showing my point, that i address these issues, rather than make it appear as if i cant defend my perspective. i have already said that my post fall into 2 categories. one would be refuting posts. the other being explaining my point. i would hope u can differentiate between the 2. the last post, was explaining my point. when i am done explaining the "big picture", i will provide an outline for my side of the debate. but u have to understand that this is a large topic. i have been reading about this since, well... 9-11. i have gathered much information and wish to use most of it. becuase of the size, and mulitiple aspects of the situation, it is only logical to break it down into various more specific points. this is how u write a paper, how u code software, how u plan a business model, and it is how i shall debate my point. if u have not read the entirety of the debate, then plz do before making assumptions about the depth of what i know. i said in the opening post, that i did contemplate writing something on the matter, but given the much information already out there, i deemed it no use duplicating work that has already been done. if u do not understand how one point connects to the other, then simply ask, and i shall explain.
those two catagories wont do. Its not that i cant differentiate, its just that well i dont want to. Sorting through 16 pages of 'info' is not exactly my thing. Thats why these things are summarized. Back to your 2 catagory manner of arguing / stating things in this thread, that wont work for one simple reason: there are too many things to be argued. A general thesis is simply critical here.. When writing a paper on frogs, you have a thesis. You focus on the main ideas , not run off in 40 different directions, because frogs can mate, frogs can migrate, frogs have different anatomies, frogs live in different environments...etc..and while it CAN all be summarized in the conclusion after each additional detail is presented, i'd rather sort through 3 pages of on topic rellevent information rather than 3 paragraphs of random sentences going in all directions 
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On September 04 2003 07:49 iGgs wrote: Show nested quote +On September 04 2003 07:23 TeCh)PsylO wrote: On September 04 2003 07:06 iGgs wrote: psylo, if you would simply take a look and reflect at all the random shit you presented throughout this thread , including links and sub topics such as the former post, i would believe that you too would be astonished at the shere magnitude of jumble.. This is why i am gonna propose that if you're THAT interested in this conspiracy shit, which apparently you are.., i ardently recommend that you gather all the existing information you hold and freakin write an essay that is coherent and flows or establish a web page. EMPHASIS on the flows, because if it doesnt flow at which point right now it doesnt, you really have no grounds of arguement because you're basically throwing out random rebuttals everytime someone disputes your opinion and your shit is scattered all over the place. At the very least make SOME kind of effort in some sense of putting together the 'big picture' , detailed and quite thoroughly supported with what you find as the most trusted of sources. Then maybe i could make some sense of your Iraq / Afghanistan / Saudia Arabia / North Korea / US Government / Bush Administration conspiracy. Until then no more of this nonsense u make a good point, that this topic is jumbled, and i agree. that has been a problem for me. it has been jumbled becuase people are shooting this in many directions(naturaully so). it would be in my best interest in terms of showing my point, that i address these issues, rather than make it appear as if i cant defend my perspective. i have already said that my post fall into 2 categories. one would be refuting posts. the other being explaining my point. i would hope u can differentiate between the 2. the last post, was explaining my point. when i am done explaining the "big picture", i will provide an outline for my side of the debate. but u have to understand that this is a large topic. i have been reading about this since, well... 9-11. i have gathered much information and wish to use most of it. becuase of the size, and mulitiple aspects of the situation, it is only logical to break it down into various more specific points. this is how u write a paper, how u code software, how u plan a business model, and it is how i shall debate my point. if u have not read the entirety of the debate, then plz do before making assumptions about the depth of what i know. i said in the opening post, that i did contemplate writing something on the matter, but given the much information already out there, i deemed it no use duplicating work that has already been done. if u do not understand how one point connects to the other, then simply ask, and i shall explain. those two catagories wont do. Its not that i cant differentiate, its just that well i dont want to. Sorting through 16 pages of 'info' is not exactly my thing. Thats why these things are summarized. Back to your 2 catagory manner of arguing / stating things in this thread, that wont work for one simple reason: there are too many things to be argued. A general thesis is simply critical here.. When writing a paper on frogs, you have a thesis. You focus on the main ideas , not run off in 40 different directions, because frogs can mate, frogs can migrate, frogs have different anatomies, frogs live in different environments...etc..and while it CAN all be summarized in the conclusion after each additional detail is presented, i'd rather sort through 3 pages of on topic rellevent information rather than 3 paragraphs of random sentences going in all directions
That took a lot of words for you to get that point across.
Please summarize.
|
rekrul always on his toes
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
