So do I, but then again I am a "wacist"Copious amount of homegrown skunk
Damn that skunk!
Off Topic Paris Attacks !
- Thread starter HugoEkitikeN01
- 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
-
Damn that skunk!
Yeah right, this is the lamest ever
First rebuttal on that page.
STUPID THEORY 1: The US government did it
SIMPLE REBUTTAL: People who say it was an inside job are split into two camps. There are those who say the US government cooked up and enacted the whole crazy plot, and those who say they let it happen without intervention. In both cases, conspiracists generally claim that the aim was to give the Bush government an excuse to wage war on the Islamic world.
So here's your simple rebuttal. US governments have shown for decades that they will intervene when and where it suits them. The last thing they need to do to justify any foreign policy is kill 3000 of their own citizens.
Utter nonsene, who wrote this crap. You need people to die if you want a country to provide it's children for your wars, repeated throughout history, false flag attack actually is a naval term, using the flag of your enemy and attacking your own shipsLets not forget the plan to attack themselves and blame cuba, a plan that made it as far as kennedy's desk
Yeah right, this is the lamest ever
First rebuttal on that page.
STUPID THEORY 1: The US government did it
SIMPLE REBUTTAL: People who say it was an inside job are split into two camps. There are those who say the US government cooked up and enacted the whole crazy plot, and those who say they let it happen without intervention. In both cases, conspiracists generally claim that the aim was to give the Bush government an excuse to wage war on the Islamic world.
So here's your simple rebuttal. US governments have shown for decades that they will intervene when and where it suits them. The last thing they need to do to justify any foreign policy is kill 3000 of their own citizens.
Lets not forget the plan to attack themselves and blame cuba, a plan that made it as far as kennedy's desk
OK.
The US government did not cause the attacks on 9/11 nor did they have any substantial knowledge of them. They may have picked up chatter and had an idea they were going to be attacked but if so, they then have to make a choice, tell the public, or not.
9 times out of 10, they don't tell. Not because they are being sneaky ****s planning on killing us all, but because of the known results of mass hysteria.
This is why we choose people to lead, because if we didnt, and every single person was privy to every single piece of information that passes through the many intelligence agencies.... Everyone would be living in fear. There would be no civilization.
The public as a whole are idiots. Thousands of different view points and ideologies don't often help governments who have the rather thankless task kf trying to please everyone.
This isn't just 9/11 bit any conspiracy you think is state backed, or ignored by the state. Its their bloody job.
A simple attack on a handful of people would have sufficed instead of Murdering 3,000 people and destroying two towers, which as I've said would require tens of thousands of civilians, many of them grieving, to buy into the conspiracy. How were they recruited? A knock at the door by a man in a dark suit and sun glasses. "Ma'am, were about to murder your husband, the father of your young children, but if anyone asks he died in a plane that flew into the WTC, thank you for your cooperation". Unlikely.Yeah right, this is the lamest ever
First rebuttal on that page.
STUPID THEORY 1: The US government did it
SIMPLE REBUTTAL: People who say it was an inside job are split into two camps. There are those who say the US government cooked up and enacted the whole crazy plot, and those who say they let it happen without intervention. In both cases, conspiracists generally claim that the aim was to give the Bush government an excuse to wage war on the Islamic world.
So here's your simple rebuttal. US governments have shown for decades that they will intervene when and where it suits them. The last thing they need to do to justify any foreign policy is kill 3000 of their own citizens.
Lets not forget the plan to attack themselves and blame cuba, a plan that made it as far as kennedy's desk
To be honest mate I find Sisu's conspiracy theories on 9/11 as ridiculous as those that suggest palestinians deliberately put their women and children in the way of Israeli rockets. Yet one is ridiculed and the other considered. Both are offensive to the victims involved. Sorry Sisu but you've got to listen to others sometimes with an open mind.
I guess I'm just sick and tired of the double standards. That's the whole bloody problem, everyone sees everything from their point of view and the whole thing is one massive vicious circle. I dont think anyone is really interested in dealing with the problem bcos they're far too busy hating on each other. Not you I might add, just out there in the real world.
Also BBC, you never consider public reaction.
Go back to 2001, it's a few days after 9/11 and Bush comes out and say, "darn it, we've been attacked at home, 3000 people have been murdered by a terroist organisation operating out of Afghanistan. However, were not going to do anything, were just going to take it and ignore it"
What's the public reaction going to be from the fickle, angry public?
Governments have to look strong. The US had to retaliate after 9/11. It didnt pick a country at random though, it attacked what it believed to be the source of the extremists. In hindsight they likely wouldn't but at that moment, they had little choice.
Go back to 2001, it's a few days after 9/11 and Bush comes out and say, "darn it, we've been attacked at home, 3000 people have been murdered by a terroist organisation operating out of Afghanistan. However, were not going to do anything, were just going to take it and ignore it"
What's the public reaction going to be from the fickle, angry public?
Governments have to look strong. The US had to retaliate after 9/11. It didnt pick a country at random though, it attacked what it believed to be the source of the extremists. In hindsight they likely wouldn't but at that moment, they had little choice.
You said Bush was in the pacific when Nixon has recruited, he was in the united states. I proved it and you were actually wrong, yet here you are repeating the same ****.
Of course that small point didn't alter the underlying context of the whole debate, that the Buish family are behind a lot of ****.
People like you, not intersted but looking to flex your imagined knowledge and seemingly dissonant reaction to opposing views which is why you made it personal right at the beginning because I wouldn't agree
People like you look for one mistake, or error and essentially use that as cause to claim the whole thng is untrue. You then treat any mistake in views you don't like as "agenda" or some other such bollocks. I am not reading from a webpage when I ramble, you are when trolling me, to make you look like you know ****
Here's the kicker though, this is how ******ed you are.
It is a fact, shown all over the world, that the plane that hit the south tower came out the other side, on all angles on all footage showing the crash from the side.
So, you believe your eyes when you see an aluminun plane that will be destroyed if it just falls of of it's undercarriage on the runway, cut a roadrunner shaped hole in reinforced steel, but when that plane appears out of the other side of the building and leaves no hole, you no longer believe the footage.
All you ******s won't explain that.. cos the only answer is the footage is fake.
That's how self deluded you are
All of the people who reported a AA pasenger plane on 9\11 on that day on the media were media people.
ALL, I can list them and their employers
Most of the public were saying for the first hit, small windowless passenger plane or missile. Fact
You ****ing big fibber! I said Bush snr had been a naval aviator in WWII only years before you stated that Nixon had been recruited by the Bush family IN THE 40's (you later revised that to the 60's) and that he couldn't have been head of the CIA at that time. I was proved right, and it was indeed granddad Bush that had done the 40's recruiting, and that Nixon had been recruited by another, sinister power group in the 60's years after the Bushes had indeed dropped him. This is another example of why people just switch off after the 243'rd cut-and-paste you lob on here trying to 'prove' your unprovable point - you are just completely oblivious to any counter-point or fact raised against you. As for the looking one mistake argument, that's the whole basis of conspiracy theory, although it's not one 'mistake' as such, but inconsistency. So let's turn the inconsistnecy argument around - how do you explain the 'inconsistency' of the tinfoil hat argument about 9/11 that several thousand eyewitnesses both in and around the Twin Towers that day, plus hundreds of news agencies and even the NYFD, ffs (who filmed the ****ing 767 going into the North Tower) said they saw the planes fly into the buildings? All of them were CIA stooges? Like the parents of the massacred children at Sandy Hook?
You're a paranoid schizophrenic (doubtless exacerbated by your drug use) who's replaced man as their Godhead because they can't accepts a chaotic, unfair random world, and need to believe something/someone is in control. You have deep father issues, feller. I hope you don't pass this **** down another generation.
Last edited:
He'll skip past the fact that it would have taken an army of conspirators and just how batshit mental the entire premise therefore is, and focus on some tiny scrap of supposed discrepancy.
It's standard behaviour for the conspiracy theorists.
I find it amazing that he hasn't managed to correlate his obvious paranoia and his weed habit
I seriously doubt Palestinians do that however I would not be in the least bit surprised if non Palestinians Muslims are.
Personally I know exactly who I would point the finger at.
SiSu is probably from the Middle East and a Muslim himself with all the anti Jewish crap he comes out with
Can I just say I'm extremely offended by the way people on here are attacking drugs.
If sisu is a nutter ok fine, but don't blame drugs that's just out of ****ing order.
If sisu is a nutter ok fine, but don't blame drugs that's just out of ****ing order.
Extremist fanatics like ISIS? Yes I bet they would. However, as has been said, they wouldnt necessarily be considered muslim.
Well I was watching Channel 4 news and the chap asked a woman passer-by and asked if she agreed with her president that this was war? I wouldnt have blamed her for saying yes, but instead she said no, it was a time to show freedom and our way of life is our strength and what they cannot destroy. I was kind of pleased the jingoistic sabre rattling which rarely solves anything wasnt at least in the minds of many French.
Because they haven't win the league in years. Of course it's a conspiracy!..
