Off Topic Paris Attacks !

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
"Lizards?" he said said:
Also your bullet analogy is not quite right. You can take an aluminum shell and load it into a tank and it will turn to dust on impact and do no damage, you would have to send that shell at quite a few times the speed of sound before you could to even hope to do any sort of damage, WTC's outer steel was two layers of tank armour of say a T34.

For the wings to penetrate that steel and its a ****ing fact, they would have to have been travelling at mach 8 or something, simply because the structural connections of the wings to the fuselage could not possibly have the strength to hold those wings on to cut through that steel.

The main fuselage should punch through like a pencil in mesh, that is how that building was designed, to take multiple strikes.

Lets forget for one minute two sets of data prove that the "plane" flew at 500 knotts, but lets forget that inconvenience, the plane would have needed to travel at about mach 4 or more for the velocity to allow the wings to cut the steel before the structural integrity of the plane gave way and the wings snapped off or folded back. Remember it is claimed that an entire plane went into a tiny missile sized hole at the pentagon, and the wings are said to have "folded back" there. But the laws of physics change when it's the WTC.

Any objective critical examination of this whole thing makes it fall apart, such horseshit. Physically impossibly, and when there is actual video evidence from the sources we all love.. silence
Click to expand...
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
 
Treble said:
I like and respect John Snow's objectivity but he's confused and off the mark here. It also doesnt factor in the west's involvement which seems surprising considering the attack was in Paris and not Tehran or Jeddah.
Click to expand...

How is he off the mark? As i said in my subsequent post it is clear he was focusing on one element here as no harm to you but we've done the self analysis to death since the Iraq invasion.

We are all aware of the original effects of western imperialism, arbitrary border drawing and then the foolish continued inteference in the regions for economic reasons in the modern era.

What is wrong with defining who the other players are? I thought you were requesting earlier a more accurate description of the divisions within islam?

Are you saying you don't believe Saudi Arabia has been a major player in creating a more radical sect and then supporting it and those with violent intentions around the world?

We can cry on about our inteference in Irans democratic process all day long but it doesn't change the fact they have had their own imperialist intentions in the area since the Clerics came to power.

As for the relation to Paris I don't believe he was suggesting it was all a Saudi plot but again we have already discussed at length the historical factors in France regarding the creation of a disafected youth. That the reasons for creating a large population of people susceptable to radicalisation were clearly economic as much as cultural. The ghettos filled with young men who have been told they aren't really citizens of the country they live in, are considered arabs not french and who can not find employment. French assimilation policies have created a cultural vacuum for these people...they don't share their parents affiliations or find answers to their very modern problems in the classical teachings of moderate Islam and can't become "French" so along comes an angry and dynamic sect that gives them focus where they had none before.

That sect came from somewhere though and I see no problem identifying its origins and saying so.

So since I have condemned our part in this mess I find no problem in condemning the Saudi's. In fact my main gripe with our Western leaders has been our continued support for the Saudi Regime. Our "war on terror"; blaming and invading everyone bar the paymasters of terror themselves! We call them friends and allies ffs!

We can say its because we rely on Saudi oil but why did we arm them rather than distablise them or invade them like all the others?
 
Treble said:
Who's the other follower SMK? <whistle>
Click to expand...
:D
NowsufferinginSpain said:
What pisses me off is why are media channels, like Instagram, not doing more to stop these loonies from trying to spread their hatred?..
Click to expand...
It was reported. Looks like it's only been up a very short time as the 1st post was about 25mins ago.

But yeah that's ****ing scary stuff, I just searched [HASHTAG]#isis[/HASHTAG] and that stood out cos of the profile pic.

I'm sure I wasn't the only one to report it but what would be interesting to know is how quickly that ip will be passed to the relevant people, Facebook owns instagram so I'd imagine there's already secret services all over it :D

I'm not in the loosing my freedom online but with **** like that how can you really argue it?
 
Look can we not get back on track and blame Islam?

One of my Muslim mates is blaming Israel. Reckons it's a false flag by them..

Also one of my mates who is partial to a conspiracy theory.. Though not in the same mould as bbf has just posted that the French Air Force are currently bombing the **** out of raqqa
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sucky
Treble said:
Leave drugs out of this! They're getting a bad rep in all this lol. The rest yes. This debate has died a slow and lingering death. It's so bad it's like watching Van Gaal's football (sorry UIR :bandit: )
Click to expand...


The brought it up, not me, you know me, if I cen get my foot in the door <laugh> But the lads brought it up in their sewing circle last night.

I would have taken it up today but took the lad to Monster Jam monster trucks. **** me you know when you go to venues like that and it's too loud, you're getting old :D

Kid loved it though, Grim Reaper obsessed, cost me an arm and a leg at the merch stalls after the show <grr>

EDIT: I mean Grave Digger, the kid looked at me like I'm a ****** when I kept saying Grim Reaper instead repeatedly <laugh>
 
DirtyKlopp said:
How is he off the mark? As i said in my subsequent post it is clear he was focusing on one element here as no harm to you but we've done the self analysis to death since the Iraq invasion.

We are all aware of the original effects of western imperialism, arbitrary border drawing and then the foolish continued inteference in the regions for economic reasons in the modern era.

What is wrong with defining who the other players are? I thought you were requesting earlier a more accurate description of the divisions within islam?

Are you saying you don't believe Saudi Arabia has been a major player in creating a more radical sect and then supporting it and those with violent intentions around the world?

We can cry on about our inteference in Irans democratic process all day long but it doesn't change the fact they have had their own imperialist intentions in the area since the Clerics came to power.

As for the relation to Paris I don't believe he was suggesting it was all a Saudi plot but again we have already discussed at length the historical factors in France regarding the creation of a disafected youth. That the reasons for creating a large population of people susceptable to radicalisation were clearly economic as much as cultural. The ghettos filled with young men who have been told they aren't really citizens of the country they live in, are considered arabs not french and who can not find employment. French assimilation policies have created a cultural vacuum for these people...they don't share their parents affiliations or find answers to their very modern problems in the classical teachings of moderate Islam and can't become "French" so along comes an angry and dynamic sect that gives them focus where they had none before.

That sect came from somewhere though and I see no problem identifying its origins and saying so.

So since I have condemned our part in this mess I find no problem in condemning the Saudi's. In fact my main gripe with our Western leaders has been our continued support for the Saudi Regime. Our "war on terror"; blaming and invading everyone bar the paymasters of terror themselves! We call them friends and allies ffs!

We can say its because we rely on Saudi oil but why did we arm them rather than distablise them or invade them like all the others?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I insinuated any of that tbh. The article is simplistic and confused in its analysis of wahabi'ism, which is the main focus of the whole piece. He's then used this do define why there's a war of proxy going on between Iran and Saudi. That's what's confused and off the mark.

Btw we can look at one aspect of this whole mess if we want but that would be naive imo. The whole thing is a mess for multiple reasons. Wahabi doctrine plays some part but not in the manner, or the extent, Snow is claiming.

FWIW I agree with the rest of what you say, particularly the corrupt Saudi monarchy and their million strong corrupt extended family. But there's a reason they're considered our allies and it's not bcos of the oil and finanxe but also more strategically. Plus they're dumb as fck which obviously helps.
 
Treble said:
I'm not sure I insinuated any of that tbh. The article is simplistic and confused in its analysis of wahabi'ism, which is the main focus of the whole piece. He's then used this do define why there's a war of proxy going on between Iran and Saudi. That's what's confused and off the mark.

Btw we can look at one aspect of this whole mess if we want but that would be naive imo. The whole thing is a mess for multiple reasons. Wahabi doctrine plays some part but not in the manner, or the extent, Snow is claiming.

FWIW I agree with the rest of what you say, particularly the corrupt Saudi monarchy and their million strong corrupt extended family. But there's a reason they're considered our allies and it's not bcos of the oil and finanxe but also more strategically. Plus they're dumb as fck which obviously helps.
Click to expand...


The bottom line is there were structures keeping the Wahabi in place in the middle east and Libya, and someone.. removed that structure and that someon's friends in the gulf provided the means for them to go nuts. The rest is history.

I like Snow but his peice is jingoistic, it basically absolves all but those mentioned of blame.
he mentions the wars illegal wars as "some thing that happened as if it is not the no1 primary reason it's gone to ****."
 
Treble said:
I'm not sure I insinuated any of that tbh. The article is simplistic and confused in its analysis of wahabi'ism, which is the main focus of the whole piece. He's then used this do define why there's a war of proxy going on between Iran and Saudi. That's what's confused and off the mark.

Btw we can look at one aspect of this whole mess if we want but that would be naive imo. The whole thing is a mess for multiple reasons. Wahabi doctrine plays some part but not in the manner, or the extent, Snow is claiming.

FWIW I agree with the rest of what you say, particularly the corrupt Saudi monarchy and their million strong corrupt extended family. But there's a reason they're considered our allies and it's not bcos of the oil and finanxe but also more strategically. Plus they're dumb as fck which obviously helps.
Click to expand...

I think any article is going to fail to be detailed enough on this subject...unless it becomes a 3 volume book lol..

It will be interesting to see French reaction regarding operations in Syria. If they switch their primary target from regime change to eliminating IS it will create further problems for the Saudis
 
  • Like
Reactions: Treble
"Lizards?" he said said:
Also your bullet analogy is not quite right. You can take an aluminum shell and load it into a tank and it will turn to dust on impact and do no damage, you would have to send that shell at quite a few times the speed of sound before you could to even hope to do any sort of damage, WTC's outer steel was two layers of tank armour of say a T34.

For the wings to penetrate that steel and its a ****ing fact, they would have to have been travelling at mach 8 or something, simply because the structural connections of the wings to the fuselage could not possibly have the strength to hold those wings on to cut through that steel.

The main fuselage should punch through like a pencil in mesh, that is how that building was designed, to take multiple strikes.

Lets forget for one minute two sets of data prove that the "plane" flew at 500 knotts, but lets forget that inconvenience, the plane would have needed to travel at about mach 4 or more for the velocity to allow the wings to cut the steel before the structural integrity of the plane gave way and the wings snapped off or folded back. Remember it is claimed that an entire plane went into a tiny missile sized hole at the pentagon, and the wings are said to have "folded back" there. But the laws of physics change when it's the WTC.

Any objective critical examination of this whole thing makes it fall apart, such horseshit. Physically impossibly, and when there is actual video evidence from the sources we all love.. silence
Click to expand...

OK...

The planes were not hollow shells. They were compressed canisters that smashed into a building at high speed. The first plane followed a smooth path before hitting the building. The second did not, it banked to the left shortly before impact. It was not a clean impact.

You must log in or register to see images
 
DirtyKlopp said:
I think any article is going to fail to be detailed enough on this subject...unless it becomes a 3 volume book lol..

It will be interesting to see French reaction regarding operations in Syria. If they switch their primary target from regime change to eliminating IS it will create further problems for the Saudis
Click to expand...

How come? You mean like the threat of Shi'ahs? I know they represent the balance against shi'ah Iran but it seems that ISIS has become an uncontrollable frankenstein's monster for the Saudis. I think Snow also says it aswell that ISIS are turning on their creator, which is even scarier bcos if Saudi monarchy falling means a vacuum for ISIS to take control then we really are fcked! Can you imagine the hell in a ****storm that will create. On the other hand, the Saudi monarchy are ****s and deserve to be removed. Seems hopeless either way tbh.

One thing's for sure, ISIS has to be stopped and destroyed. I'm sure it will be. What's worrying is what incarnation those who are left will become next!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back