yeah fair point never thought about that, but then seeing as the mods sit round all day doing feck all else
Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.
- Thread starter BBFs Unpopular View
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
yeah fair point never thought about that, but then seeing as the mods sit round all day doing feck all else
Read back through it mate. He was getting dry humped with basic logic and he couldn't stomach it, so he followed his usual MO and went off on one. He only got some back AFTER he started with the insults.
He's probably gone off for a spliff to calm down
Are you claiming Deltmown?
I am having a spliff tho
This might sound like an unusual question but is there any chance of you backing up your claim about the younger bush and his role/ ownership of security at the WTC.
In Sisu's defence, I have seen on reputable programmes like Newsnight, respectable analysts talking about a strategy of chaos in war adopted by the U.S. where there is no ultimate military aim other than to perpetuate conflict and draw as many protaganists into the conflict as possible with no clear alliances - with the aim of simply identifying opportunities for their own financial and political aims.
I hope others have seen or heard of this. It scared me somewhat as I may not agree with america's actions much of the time but at least I believed they had a planned outcome in any intervention. But not according to this strategy. There is no ultimate planned outcome, no end game, no particular long term american strategy to enable one particular side to prevail over another (even if desired). The theory is that continued conflict regardless of outcome provides the best medium to milk american global power and economics.
It's only something I saw on Newsnight and the idea of it fascinated me tbh.
I hope others have seen or heard of this. It scared me somewhat as I may not agree with america's actions much of the time but at least I believed they had a planned outcome in any intervention. But not according to this strategy. There is no ultimate planned outcome, no end game, no particular long term american strategy to enable one particular side to prevail over another (even if desired). The theory is that continued conflict regardless of outcome provides the best medium to milk american global power and economics.
It's only something I saw on Newsnight and the idea of it fascinated me tbh.
They didn't only do security for WTC, you left out the airline AA that the planes were "hijacked" from, Dulles Airport was used by the "terrorists", all three things involved in 9\11.
If you want to believe it is a coincidence go ahead I can't be arsed.
Empires often fall after stretching themselves too thin. Rome did, so did the British Empire, neither could defend their empires in the end.
I would hope that the concept of perpetual war will not be new to many on here, its not a new idea eg orwell made a big point of it in 1984.
Mate I dont really care who knows any more or less than anyone else or about 1984. But the idea that the U.S. isnt really allied to anyone in conflicts such as in the middle-east I do find interesting. It's cynical and desperately sad if true.
I don't no. I never said it was a fackt. We are talking conspiracy theory after all. If I had proof he was involved it would just be a conspiracy wouldn't it..
Oh OK then, just you seemed fairly confident of it before, good of you to admit it though.
Sorry, didnt mean it to sound like that, rather I was defending the knowledge of people on here. Either way yes its as cynical as feck and can get you down if you follow it through to its logical conclusion.
Yeah it's just a coincidence or more, who knows. Fishy.
Not the first time Bush has been on controversy where family members are concerned,
During his elections, his brother in law owned one of the companies that made the voting machines .
Others were owned by people who raised funds for Bush.No worries TT, I can understand that the theory is there but the idea it's being adopted means that some of Sisu's suggestions are only a step away from being plausible. I'm not saying he's right but I'm keeping an open mind (although still questioning the credibility)
Yeah it's just a coincidence or more, who knows. Fishy.
Not the first time Bush has been on controversy where family members are concerned,
During his elections, his brother in law owned one of the companies that made the voting machines .
Done a bit of looking myself since you said that and quickly found lots of similar claims with few sources but also just found this website http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html
It is a debunker site that claims he wasn't even working for the company as he left in 2000. some sources but couldn't be bothered following the chain. so who knows.
There is so much stuff out there now compared to when I researched it that I pity anyone getting into that particular conspiracy theory now, there is so much misinformation on the theory sites and myth or debunk sites.
Yes, and it sounds very, very plausible. I've never doubted that the US government milked 9\11 to the hilt, or that some in certain agencies knew something, if not precisely what, would happen. My argument is their pure bloody bollocks of the 9/11 holographic planes/ planted explosives/every 'inconsistency' in the evidence proves it was the Israelis, wannit? school of ****e.
Healthy cynicism is mutated into pure, unadulterated gullibilty. And the sheer chutzpah of the lot is when these cranks witter on about people being manipulated.
Yeh agree with the last bit as well.
What freaks me out about the plausibility of that strategy is how much it blows away my previous thinking. I'm a cynic anyway so already bought into the "US isnt really fighting for any noble cause, it's siding against X by supporting Y bcos it ultimately serves the US interest". To realise they no longer care about the outcome for X or Y; that the whole thing is one big homogenous mess that they pick the bones out of...well that makes the whole bloody thing unpredictable.
It's like physicists being introduced to quantum theory...the implication freaks you out!
- Status