EPT9-11 - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
uSer)eNdeR
Norway5 Posts
| ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
maThRaf
Canada213 Posts
| ||
|
DeMoNiC
United States294 Posts
On September 02 2003 03:28 ObsoleteLogic wrote: But what are they doing with that oil they're taking, then? Selling it to where? hehe i wish i knew.. but hey im just a kid and i dont know what nations or company buys oil from Cheneys company... but its obvious they arent giving it to us (gas prices), and its not like oil is becoming a scarce used appliance.. this stuff is NEEDED, so they could be selling to anyone | ||
|
ProudToBeANoob
Thailand54 Posts
I will not feed this debate because i don't want to fall into the trap of misinformation... To the ones who made their opinion about France or any other country by watching CNN and reading the same newspapers they are bitching about: be logical ! | ||
|
Gryffindor_us
United States5606 Posts
| ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
| ||
|
Gryffindor_us
United States5606 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
now.. i have to say that u guys are horrible at debating.. offering no evidence to back your points and mostly relying on the "your stupid" technique. if u do a simple google search, u can find links to counter my points. for example, from the nypost: office supplies cost steal to melt this is what i would suspect from people who actually know what they are talking abuot... but its not what i got. now, i have posted links that counter this, especially the one that says steal was not a factor in the collapse.. but i would like to make the point that regardless of weather or not the WTC's were a controlled collapse(there is also interesting evidence abuot the pentagon), it does not effect the rest of the evidence that suggest that there was more involved than 19 hijackers. i personally think that the evidence makes a strong case for a controlled collapse, but i am willing to accept the opinions of those more skeptical. quite frankly, i never expected that to be the focus of the discussion. for anyone that is interested, i suggest u look into the matter, but for the information weary, we can move on... for all those who so vailently attacked the controlled collapse idea, how would u explain norads stand down? and what about the actions of our president? people have asked the question, would u order a shoot down? well.. lets take a look at what the president did: Bush at booker elementary when the video starts, bush is "told" of the attacks, when the 2ND! plane hits. why? now.. he could have given the order to shoot down, or at the very least tried to learn more of the situation. but, he sits in the classroom for another 30 minutes, without an ounce of surprise that america was just attacked, and does not act. why? for a more detailed timeline of bush's actions that day: bush's 9-11 schedule im trying to show that this literally could have been stopped, let alone prevented. why wouldnt it be prevented? what good would 9-11 do? well, i have already stated and provided links for the bush administration publicly saying they wanted to go after iraq during the clinton administration. they also beleive that the us military should be used to strengthen our global control(refer back to PNAC). the war against afhganistan was also planed before 9-11. planned attacks before 9-11: BBC u corporate junkies i have already shown that cheneys resource plan, which was made before 9-11, included iraqi oil fields. the patriot act, was also writtin before 9-11: patriot act writtin before 9-11 source 2 now, it is failry clear that the bush administration had planned the events taking place after 9-11, before 9-11. but, could these plans go forth? would the american public support a war that would cost us so much WITHOUT 9-11? in fact, clinton has publicly stated that he had a chance to attack osama, but did not for he thuoght there would be a lack of support. clinton did not take osoma."Janet Reno, then the attorney general, said an attack would break international law. Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state, is quoted as saying that "bombing Muslims wouldn't be helpful at this time". a simple google search will yeild many more sources for this.. so we have a sitiuation where the bush administration has clearly stated there idealogical and policy plans, but can not go forth with them, for america would not accept them given the current situation at the time in the country. after 9-11, the PNAC was quick to point out in defense of the president, that the situation we were in was unavoidable: "There is no avoiding the war we are in today, any more than we could have avoided world war after our fleet was bombed at Pearl Harbor" but lets look at when they said before 9-11: "A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." this is taken from page 51 of the a PNAC report. u can find it here: PNAC report so, the bush administration publicly says(through the pnac, remember we are talking abuot an idealogy and political goals) that it is necessary for another pearl harbor to take place for there suggested transformation to be a success within a small time frame. let me remind u that a president can serve for a maximum of 8 years, a small amount of time to seize an oppertunity. let me also remind u of the many comparisons to pearl harbor directly after 9-11. for anyone living in the US, this should be easy to remember, for any others, i will supply links if asked. so the bush administration had an agenda. they needed a catasrophe to happen in order to put forth that agenda. 9-11 was a catastophe. they then smoothly continue with there agenda. now this would suggest that the US, or even the bush administration, directly planned 9-11. but lets not forget abuot the long standing relationship and deep history with terror organizations and dictators. i have attempted to explain the continuation of a policy that was dependant on a catastophe, it is late, so i will stop here, but later i will explain the continuation of our deceitful actinon including our relation ship with osama, saddam, saudi arabia, isreal, and of course the cia. | ||
Legionnaire
Australia4515 Posts
i said why, especially since the ones your using are saying their opinions (being your opinions as well) as facts when they are not. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Legionnaire
Australia4515 Posts
no point going against it, ppl either beleive or they dont, you beleive and i feel sorry for you. | ||
|
DeMoNiC
United States294 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
yes i wasn't even going to post that cause i gave up on this thread, didn't read any of your last few posts, people will always look for things that will give them explanations they are seeking... thus god. no point going against it, ppl either beleive or they dont, you beleive and i feel sorry for you. and vise versa | ||
|
SoLsiTO
United States573 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
DeMoNiC
United States294 Posts
 | ||
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
It seems to me that at least Psylo's done his homework - which is quantum leaps more than I can say for his detractors. Whether he turns out to be right or not, he's very obviously put some serious thought and research into this. Not so his opponents - at least it doesn't seem so on the face of it. Nothing more than acid-laced appeals to personal opinion, petty personal insults and deconstructionist over-analyses. Where are the counter-arguments? Not YOUR counter-arguments, but the kind that have seen print? What are the sources? C'mon. I know the flag-waving, super-patriots among you can do better than this. Where the hell is Hades (aka "The Canadian Captain America") when you need the bastard... | ||
|
Legionnaire
Australia4515 Posts
On September 02 2003 08:09 TeCh)PsylO wrote: leg, how about your argue against the information, rather than the cover. uhhh i did in one instance and you ignored it. true it wasn't linked to articles but common sense shows the logic of it. as for mensrea that takes up more time then i'm willing to provide. =] | ||
|
DeMoNiC
United States294 Posts
| ||
| ||
