|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 07:52 [pG]Rekrul wrote: Show nested quote +On September 04 2003 07:49 iGgs wrote: 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.
hoho wasnt that clever, its a shame they were different posts and the latter dealt more specifically with his 2 catagory way of organizing things, AND it isnt 16 pages worth on the same relative topic
GO RAKrel!12 
|
iggs, if sorting through information is "not your thing", then why bother? i already have a "legion" of people that will attempt to debate profusly, but will not put effort into actually knowing anything.. my sentances did not go into random directions. it is a simple concept. answer this simple question.
could the bush administration do what it is doing, without 9-11?
i dont know how i could make it more clear...
|
hah, it just occured to me iggs, i opened the thread with a summary.... jesus man!!!!!!
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 08:02 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
iggs, if sorting through information is "not your thing", then why bother? i already have a "legion" of people that will attempt to debate profusly, but will not put effort into actually knowing anything.. my sentances did not go into random directions. it is a simple concept. answer this simple question.
could the bush administration do what it is doing, without 9-11?
i dont know how i could make it more clear...
psylo, i did read most of the stuff you presented only omitting the links, and if i wasnt a lazy asshole i'd go back and assemble several exerpts of shit that had absoultely nothing to do with what you proposed here. On a side note, i am perfectly willing to learn more about this topic but without delving into 91823839 different aspects of it. Can you please just acknowledge that BEFORE you say the government might (a very fucking questionable word if you even posses the right to use it, which i dont think you do) have planted bombs at the base of the WTC or something to that affect, you have to PROVE without a resonable doubt that they even had a role in the endeavor(9/11)?
Yes the bush administration could have accomplished whatever they saw as being needed with the proper manipulation and / or persuation. And before you get started on your bullshit rant of "THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, MANIPULATION!" think about any politician that doesnt at least use some form of manipulation in their campaign or administration. If you have one in mind, please tell me because as far as i know there has to date been no divine idealistic politicians. On a side note , the manipulation you're presenting is in the form of manipulating things in order for a CATASTROPHY(sp?) to occur, political agenda manipulation and genocide are two very different things. If thats beyond you so be it, but to answer your question, yes the bush administration could have accomplished anything they wanted to up to this point with traditional campaigning short of invading Iraq and occupying their oil fields, but HEY, lets look deeper once again, if we're saying that was our objective we're merely speculating, and if we're speculating we have NO GROUNDS FOR ARGUEMENT.. isnt that convenient
|
psylo, i did read most of the stuff you presented only omitting the links, and if i wasnt a lazy asshole i'd go back and assemble several exerpts of shit that had absoultely nothing to do with what you proposed here. On a side note, i am perfectly willing to learn more about this topic but without delving into 91823839 different aspects of it. Can you please just acknowledge that BEFORE you say the government might (a very fucking questionable word if you even posses the right to use it, which i dont think you do) have planted bombs at the base of the WTC or something to that affect, you have to PROVE without a resonable doubt that they even had a role in the endeavor(9/11)?
i have repeatedly said that the controlled collapse issue, is not relevant to my point. i admit to the mistake of not being more orangized in initiating this debate. but i would expect one that is engaging in the debate to actually keep up...
Yes the bush administration could have accomplished whatever they saw as being needed with the proper manipulation and / or persuation
if this is true, then why did bush sr, and clinton disagree? and.. why did the bush administratino wait until AFTER 9-11 to bring these issues up? they were already planned after all.. it was not discussed in his election race. actually he said he was opposed to nation building.
political agenda manipulation and genocide are two very different things
i never said a thing about genocide.
yes the bush administration could have accomplished anything they wanted to up to this point with traditional campaigning short of invading Iraq and occupying their oil fields
u already said this, read above for reply...
if we're saying that was our objective we're merely speculating, and if we're speculating we have NO GROUNDS FOR ARGUEMENT.. isnt that convenient
this is completly incorrect. it is not speculation, when the bush administration writes, and makes public record, of there agenda. refer back to the PNAC. if u actually did "sort through the info", you would not be making these foolish mistakes
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 08:26 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +psylo, i did read most of the stuff you presented only omitting the links, and if i wasnt a lazy asshole i'd go back and assemble several exerpts of shit that had absoultely nothing to do with what you proposed here. On a side note, i am perfectly willing to learn more about this topic but without delving into 91823839 different aspects of it. Can you please just acknowledge that BEFORE you say the government might (a very fucking questionable word if you even posses the right to use it, which i dont think you do) have planted bombs at the base of the WTC or something to that affect, you have to PROVE without a resonable doubt that they even had a role in the endeavor(9/11)? i have repeatedly said that the controlled collapse issue, is not relevant to my point. i admit to the mistake of not being more orangized in initiating this debate. but i would expect one that is engaging in the debate to actually keep up... Show nested quote +Yes the bush administration could have accomplished whatever they saw as being needed with the proper manipulation and / or persuation if this is true, then why did bush sr, and clinton disagree? and.. why did the bush administratino wait until AFTER 9-11 to bring these issues up? they were already planned after all.. it was not discussed in his election race. actually he said he was opposed to nation building. i never said a thing about genocide. Show nested quote +yes the bush administration could have accomplished anything they wanted to up to this point with traditional campaigning short of invading Iraq and occupying their oil fields u already said this, read above for reply... Show nested quote + if we're saying that was our objective we're merely speculating, and if we're speculating we have NO GROUNDS FOR ARGUEMENT.. isnt that convenient this is completly incorrect. it is not speculation, when the bush administration writes, and makes public record, of there agenda. refer back to the PNAC. if u actually did "sort through the info", you would not be making these foolish mistakes
it is speculation because i do not see it on CNN. CNN is a major news dictator. If i cannot trust mainstream CNN i cannot trust any of your claims of the US using iraqi oil for personal benefit / profit, because those are based upon faulty sources. If CNN is not to be trusted nothing else is.
i thought you would be able to see past the INCREDIBLY F'ING OBVIOUS reference when i said genocide, genocide = being involved in 9/11 activity resulting in the death of thousands
first of all, i dont even see bush sr / clinton shit is even remotely relevent to what bush jr can accomplish, i said with the proper manipulation / persuation it could be accomplished, this is refering to POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING not anything that happened 10 -15 years ago, please elaborate.
they waited after 9/11 because thats the way it works. Dates coincide. Maybe his political agenda wasnt completely prepared. What if bush suddenly brought up a tax cut during the last year of his presidency, say for arguements sake, 2 years from now. Would you be the moron saying "OMFG TAX CUT = SURPLUS MONEY FROM IRAQ OIL 2 YEARS AGO, WTF CONSPIRACY!!" think about it please! once again you're taking the role of the conspiracy theorirst that sees TWO fucking random associations and from that pulls out 90% assumption of a theory.
also i was skimming through previous pages and found i think on page 10 some references to past events and a enclosed conspiracy theory to it which i found utterly absurd almost to the point of being comical. If you want me to refute those i will be more than glad to!
|
[QUOTE]On September 04 2003 07:34 badteeth wrote:
[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.[/QUOTE]
ok you just eloborated on bullshit you said earlier, which only leads me to repeat myself.
|
This threat s gonna get mad since too many ppl have brought in too much irralevent shits...
|
iggs, i will no longer debate with u, until u put forth some actuall effort. im not going to hold your hand and spoon feed u the obvious.
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 04 2003 14:18 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
iggs, i will no longer debate with u, until u put forth some actuall effort. im not going to hold your hand and spoon feed u the obvious.
i have proved you wrong in every way possible thus far, each idea you have presented i have swiftly refuted.
|
i have already shown that cheneys resource plan included iraq oil feilds(links provided alreaday). i have repeatedly said that cheney kept his plan a secret. here is a timeline of the effort to get cheneyes plan released(my "unreliable source" is a gov. wev site):
resource chronology
process ussed to develop energy policy
|
i have proved you wrong in every way possible thus far, each idea you have presented i have swiftly refuted.
lol this is laughable... man, i think the russians DID do it
|
On September 04 2003 16:31 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +i have proved you wrong in every way possible thus far, each idea you have presented i have swiftly refuted. lol this is laughable... man, i think the russians DID do it
you probably do. and even if you don't you could probably debate it like you do.
|
btw, I have no idea what anyone is talking about anymore. We are talking about 9/11, not north korea's bombs, not the war on iraq, not bush's energy policy, not how well we debate, not whose posts are jumnbled. Psylo, let's hear your big essay with every point you want to make.
|
"Saudi Arabian & UAE Oil Facilities Profiled As Well"
So are we going to take over Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, too? Whether you realize this or not, before the war, we did indeed import oil from Iraq.
|
On September 04 2003 16:51 BlackJack wrote:
btw, I have no idea what anyone is talking about anymore. We are talking about 9/11, not north korea's bombs, not the war on iraq, not bush's energy policy, not how well we debate, not whose posts are jumnbled. Psylo, let's hear your big essay with every point you want to make.
The war on Iraq and consequentially potential gains would be the supposed motive of the US blowing up the WTC.
|
you probably do. and even if you don't you could probably debate it like you do
i dont think the russians had anything to do with it. the rest i will take as a compliment.
The war on Iraq and consequentially potential gains would be the supposed motive of the US blowing up the WTC.
bingo. i have been waiting for you, before i continue to explain my point. i want u to address the same question.
could the bush administration do what it is doing now, if there was no 9-11?
i ask this assuming that u agree with me, that what they are doing now, was preplanned. i think that i have proven this through the pnac's own writings. if u disagree, plz explain.
|
I was clarifying your arguments for Blackjack. Notice I used words like "potential" and "supposed". I still fail to see anything other than a minor coincidence, without firm proof. Read my post above that.
|
On September 04 2003 17:46 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
could the bush administration do what it is doing now, if there was no 9-11?
Can you clean up a mess before its made? Shovel snow off the driveway without snow?
i ask this assuming that u agree with me, that what they are doing now, was preplanned. i think that i have proven this through the pnac's own writings. if u disagree, plz explain.
Sorry, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to track down links in this thread; if you would be so kind as to repost the PNAC's writings, I would be most appreciative.
|
i am asking the question in a very general sense. i dont think that agreeing with this, implies that u think that 9-11 was some sort of conspiracy. it is more of a question abuot american politics. could the bush administration have sold the idea of war in the middle east to the people, and to congress, if it was not for 9-11? any details within the actualy event of 9-11 are irrelivant. assuming that 9-11 was indeed simply just 19 hijackers with some financial backing by al queda, the "offical story", could bush have pulled this off?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
