Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#1081    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,880 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:40 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

So your an arrogant so and so too I take it? If you do not want to discuss a thing, and only want to be heard, then a blog would be suitable, not a discussion forum.

If that is to your preference, then do not let the door hit you on the backside on your way out.

With all due respect mate, what you offer here is not reasoned argument or analytical thinking.  What you present is a regurgitation of the talking points of a story proven many times to be a hoax.  You present stale claims that cannot be true.  IMO, that is not really discussion.  I wonder if next you might present a 'discussion' about how the world is actually flat?


#1082    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,880 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:42 PM

Bee

What I find interesting about the dancing Israelis is that they were set up and filming, as and before the planes struck the towers.  That provides some measure of insight. :innocent:


#1083    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

So you are the judge of what has been what you call politically steered are you? Or rather you run it past Al Jazeera for approval? , Al Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar, now you are telling me that one Government is better than another, or that the local Government is more accurate? Might that be because they happen to be in the very region that these killers come from and are trained and bred in? Damn you sound like a hypocrite right now.

I think my earlier suggestion of just qualifying any media claim that either party wishes to challenge might still be the best path.

I agreed with your suggestion in my last post, that media claims should be checked for validity.  It would be nice if you could apply your own suggestion, though judging by your attempt to defend Fox News in this case, response above and other comments, I’m not sure you really know how to.  

My method of determining validity does not rely on running anything past Al Jazeera or believing one local government more accurate (I thought that would have been clear from my post #847: “I don’t believe, generally speaking, there is much difference between the way that Western and Middle Eastern media operate; neither are immune to the politics of their respective regions”).

What I have done, in the case discussed, is to compare the subtitles/transcript of the bin Laden videotape (the source material), against what each of Al Jazeera and Fox News actually reported...

Al Jazeera simply reports the facts and transcript in full: -
http://www.aljazeera...3336457223.html

Fox News provides only excerpts of the transcript, with addition of a propagandistic headline and editiorial, “Bin Laden Claims responsibility for 9/11” and “Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks” (neither of which are contained within or can be concluded from the actual transcript): -
http://www.foxnews.c...,137095,00.html

One is an example of factual reporting, the other an example of propagandistic ‘reporting’.  I would urge everyone to click on the links above to compare and contrast the reporting styles.  It is a fine example of what we are dealing with when it comes to the Western media witch hunt that followed 9/11.  Please be aware of what you are reading – then at least it is an informed choice whether to be sucked in or not.

This is of course one specific case, and whilst a repeating pattern can be seen through further examples, each case should regardless be judged on its own merit.


View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

All peoples views are interesting, it is downright rude of you to say the last 10 pages of discussion are not worthy of you. You certainly have a high opinion of yourself.

I did not say the last 10 pages are “not worthy” of me.  It was mostly tongue in cheek, I actually read every page and there were some interesting points which could have been responded to.  But the following turned me off digging through to find them and is what my comment was aimed at: -

Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?

This type of spamming is not so interesting (say, after the first three times) and in my opinion disrupts the chain of constructive discussion/reduces informative value of the thread.  I should add that I hold most responsible the member who refuses to directly address a question, which can be frustrating for the member attempting to hold an open and honest discussion.

Along with Stundie and Shrooma bickering about a “12 year old girl”, yeah screw it, I’m going to take the easy option and pretend like those 10 pages didn’t happen.  Sorry if you think that’s rude.  If there was anything raised that was vital to our discussion then please point me in the right direction and I’ll respond.


View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

So why on earth would Hijackers go to someone that has nothing to do with a certain action, does not provide any money for it, and essentially just heard about it after it happened, if one follows your path. Is that not just another person in the mix who could jeopardise such a delicate operation, you just said they went to Bin Laden. Why would that bother seeing him at all if he is not a main player?

From the perspective that my research suggests, it was obviously necessary for the agents to implicate themselves with bin Laden, ‘Al Qaeda’ and the Taliban – the purpose of the operation was to entrap the target and provide pretext for the ‘War on Terror’.  I also believe that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi official in Prague prior 9/11 for exactly the same reason, but that source of propaganda fell apart when Czech intelligence distanced themselves from the claim – anyway, that’s another story.  Had the meeting with bin Laden not occurred, the Bush administration may have been left with a quite useless, though perhaps interesting, pretext for a ‘War on Hamburg’ (referring to the Hamburg cell of hijackers who formed the lead pilots).

From an official story perspective, the Hamburg cell left their comfortable Western lives, travelled to Afghanistan and met with bin Laden to become Jihadists.  Bin Laden ‘ordered’ them, under his non-existent ‘command structure’, to carry out the 9/11 attack and these men became the suicide pilots of Flight 11, 175 and 93.  Interesting that not one of them said, “Err, screw flying a plane into a building” as apparently was the case during planning of the 1995 Bojinka plot, and as the majority of sane people, capable of long term planning, would.

I think there is truth in both version of events above.  Whilst bin Laden would welcome hearing from anyone willing to carry out such a suicide attack on U.S. interests, Western agents damn well knew that and took advantage of it.


View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

"I did not plan" is not the same as "I was not involved".
Direct action is not openly apparent, why would it be? Bin Laden was cold blooded not stupid. If the evidence was clear enough to place in a public forum, we would not have this conversation would we?

All very true... which is no basis to launch a war and assassination team.


View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

Of course you would, because they are plain actions taunting the rest of the world outside of Sunni Islam about his glee at the success of his "group of people". As you prefer the term. This is the where the larger part of the world "gets" that which you seem to purposefully remain ignorant about. From what I gather, so you can try to kick the American Government.

I specifically asked,  “What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack?”  When you come back stating that bin Laden ‘rejoiced’ or was ‘happy’ after the attack, of course this does not provide an answer to the question in any way.

I do “get” that there are many people who think it justified to victimise any person who opposes U.S. policies in the Middle East, wars and all, and who express ‘glee’ when reciprocation occurs.  How many from that region have been killed as a result of U.S. supplied and/or funded arms?  Many times more than 3,000 that’s for sure.  Again, bin Laden’s satisfaction at the attack, which many shared, is not evidence of his responsibility, nor alone in my opinion is it moral justification, when we look at the whole story, to put a bullet in his head.

Following the above, let me restate that it is not my aim here to absolve bin Laden of responsibility for any acts of violence that he did coerce.  In the grand scale of things it makes no difference that bin Laden is now swimming with the fishes, though in an ideal world, it is my opinion that bin Laden should have been put on trial and faced punishment for his actions, along with a great many others.  

My argument here is simply ‘who is directly responsible for/who perpetrated the 9/11 attack and for what reason’.  If the conclusion is that a false flag operation/setup occurred to provide pretext for yet more war, then I think it quite right that the American government/Bush administration deserve to be kicked for that.


View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

You are good at playing obtuse aren't you. Yes I said that, in the context with the scenario of my work and my boss, I did not mean he directly funded the measly $500,000.00 for the plane strike, he funded Al Qaeda. Without Bin Laden, there may be no Al Qaeda.

Ah, so you have admitted there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘ordered’ the 9/11 attack and now you accept there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘funded’ the 9/11 attack.  Neither are you able to answer the question: “What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack?” (the answer, we all know, is “none”).  

Therefore, we might ask, why did the Bush administration and Western media so quickly make bin Laden and regime change in Afghanistan the top priority target?  Like that could ever solve the problem.  The public initially swallowed it hook, line and sinker, including myself, though it’s sheer madness that any informed person could support this line of action as a way to prevent a future attack.

Why were not all resources put into shutting down that support network closest to the hijackers said to be responsible for direct perpetration of the attack?  If 9/11 were the result of a genuine ‘terrorist’ attack then the administration might have been more interested in getting to that truth of the matter.  Why are Omar al Bayoumi, Omar Sheikh, Israeli agents, the CIA, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc, who did more to facilitate 9/11 than bin Laden ever did, getting off scott free?  Is it that those who held the strings of the investigation and response knew there was little threat without their approval of the false flag to begin?


View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:


Yes, read the 9/11 Commission report, chapter 5.4 “A Money Trail?”, to understand that neither funding of ‘Al Qaeda’ nor the 9/11 attack came from bin Laden’s pocket.


View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

Yes the CIA funded the Mujahideen. So what? You know as well as I why, Operation Cyclone. It was a joint effort against the Soviets, I doubt you are too young to remember the Cold war, which had not ended with withdrawals from Afghanistan.

This is important because ties were not severed with the end of Operation Cyclone.

Bin Laden’s ‘first trainer’, Ali Mohammed, was a CIA/‘Al Qaeda’ double-agent who operated with both groups up to 1998 for one example, and has now ‘disappeared’ in U.S. detention.  Then you look at Jamal al Fadl, recruited to ‘Al Qaeda’ from Brooklyn in the U.S. in 1988, and who ended up being the star witness that helped define ‘Al Qaeda’ as a coherent ‘organisation’.  We look at CIA infiltration of ‘Al Qaeda’ that was ongoing, we understand through Operation Gladio how the CIA were proficient in creating ‘stay-behind’ factions, we listen to former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds: -

“I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know.  For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.

I know you are going to say 'Oh my God, we went there and bombed the medical factory in the 1990s during Clinton, we declared him Most Wanted' and what I'm telling you is, with those groups, we had operations in Central Asia, and that relationship - using them as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict - we used them all the way until September 11.

There is so much information that of course our Mainstream Media has not reported, but there have been some good books written on the topic, and that is: What we have been doing, what we were doing in those years, all the way, all the way until that day of September 11, in Central Asia, in what they call East Turkistan where we are talking about the Uighurs, and with Bin Laden, via Turkey.”



Incidentally, the “intimate relationship” described above is something that bin Laden suspected, and given Edmonds’ statement, he was correct: -

“The United States wants to incite conflict between China and the Muslims.  The Muslims of Xinjiang are being blamed for the bomb blasts in Beijing.  But I think these explosions were sponsored by the American CIA.”

~bin Laden, 18 Mar 97



What betting he was also correct when later stating of 9/11: -

“The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it.  Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive.  They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia.  In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction.  Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.  Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year.



Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates?  That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.”

~bin Laden, 28 Sep 01



Anyhow, I digress.  The point is, there were certainly overlapping areas with the CIA/ISI and with Western intelligence all over and inside ‘Al Qaeda’ all the way to 9/11 – from there, the setup/entrapment of bin Laden was easy.


View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

The paper quoted bin Laden as saying: "Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida is involved in the attacks and the US has traced the attackers within America.

LINK

As I began this post, this is another example of your poor ability or unwillingness to validate media reports.  I’ll give you a chance, and because I’m tired of spoon-feeding this stuff that’s available to anyone.  Find the actual transcript of the interview from the Daily Ummat newspaper which your linked article is reporting second-hand on.  Check for yourself whether bin Laden states, "Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida...".  Then please come back and confirm for us that bin Laden didn't say that at all.  Perhaps even apologise for spreading the misinformation in bolded and red text?


View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

All Muslims are Islam.
I am sure he does know his views better than I do, but he made no secret about them. Why you try to absolve a know killer is rather bewildering. But when he speaks of the Islam Nation and Muslim brothers, he is indeed not speaking for Islam, but his merry band of insane killers who follow the fundamentals of Shari'ah.  So my point stands despite your protest.

Dr. Yahia Abdur-Rahman, from the Islamic Shurah Council of Southern California (ISCSC), offers Supplication For The Victims    Dr. Maher Hathout, from the the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and The Islamic Center of Southern California (ICSC), condemns the attack and issues a statement. Clickhere to listen
Dr. Ahmad Sakr, from the Islamic Education Center (IEC), offers his condolences to the families of the victims and condemns the attack. Click here to listen
Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), condemns the attack. Click here to listen


These people do not call what he does an act of Islam do they. They do not say he is part of what they stand for. These are different groups of people.

We are discussing bin Laden’s views, it doesn’t matter what other people think.  Bin Laden thought of himself as representative of Islam, it doesn’t matter that others of the faith did not conform to his views – it does not shake bin Laden’s belief that he is representative of Islam.

Your initial point does not stand, nor ever did, because you have not proven who bin Laden refers to by “we”.


View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

What? Who did I ignore where?

I provided a link to information that bin Laden was detained after 9/11 and remained in imprisonment in Pakistan up to his assassination.  You complained of the Telegraph reports and declined to comment on the rest of the information.


View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

Bin Laden is guilty!

Shout it enough and you will believe it unconditionally.  The real question is, bin Laden is guilty of what, specifically?  And as we are discussing 9/11 here, does his guilt outweigh that of others; the direct perpetrators and those within the the U.S. system itself?  Judging by the answers to my questions you have provided, it seems not.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1084    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,599 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:43 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Fox News provides only excerpts of the transcript, with addition of a propagandistic headline and editiorial, “Bin Laden Claims responsibility for 9/11” and “Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks” (neither of which are contained within or can be concluded from the actual transcript): -

http://www.foxnews.c...,137095,00.html


But, many people already knew that Osama bin Laden was responsible.

Quote

Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?


He failed to take a hint.

Quote


I provided a link to information that bin Laden was detained after 9/11 and remained in imprisonment in Pakistan up to his assassination.  You complained of the Telegraph reports and declined to comment on the rest of the information.


Let's take another look at your link.

Quote


AFGHANISTAN'S Taliban regime has confirmed that Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the attacks on America, is under house arrest.

But US Secretary of State Colin Powell later said he could not confirm the reports. Mr Powell did, however, announce that bin Laden was a main suspect in the hunt for those responsible for Tuesday's attacks.

Sources close to the hunt for the hijackers' accomplices and backers have described his involvement as"all but 100 per cent certain".

But the Los Angeles Times reported diplomatic observers were sceptical about the Taliban's moves and were aimed at avoiding criticism and possible reprisals for harbouring bin Laden since 1996, when he fled Sudan after US Cruise missile attacks on the country.

Diplomatic sources told the newspaper only a complete and unconditional surrender of bin Laden and his band of aides would satisfy the United States, where he is already wanted for his alleged part in bombing American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The FBI has had the terrorist at the top of its 10 most-wanted list since the 1996 bombings in Africa and some of his followers have been successfully prosecuted.


Edited by skyeagle409, 22 February 2013 - 04:02 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1085    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 22 February 2013 - 04:14 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

But, many people already knew that Osama bin Laden was responsible.


He failed to take a hint.

Yeah.. err.. why don’t you link that false and propagandistic Fox News headline and editorial again to 'prove' your point?

Better yet, take a look here: -

“Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest.”

~bin Laden statement through Peshawar Afghan Islamic Press, 16th Sep. 01


I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.

~bin Laden interview with Karachi Ummat, 28th Sep. 01


Come on, I’m waiting for you to ignore this and repost the Fox News article.

Because that’s all you’ve got, isn’t it.


View Postskyeagle409, on 22 February 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

Let's take another look at your link.

Oh, the initial claim you spammed was that bin Laden had admitted responsibility for the 9/11 attack.  Now you are just quoting an alternative source who believe that bin Laden was "involved".  Ok, that's quite the climb down.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1086    Nathan DiYorio

Nathan DiYorio

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • Bitter words with sweet flavor are poison just the same.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 04:26 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 22 February 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

What 1+1=2?

Yes, I am happy to say we have all aspects of that equation down, and it is a scientific way to look at it. Science has dumped philosophy for the large part. Like I say, it seems total hippy BS to me. You can sit on your backside pondering all day if 1+1 really = 2. I'll be outside using that "inaccurate ploy" to build buildings.

Not faith -  demostrable proof. I can get one of any thing on earth, then go get another one, and all across space-time, it will still be 2!

Shouldn't you be bugging some other hippy in the Philosophy section about this crap?

Posted Image



Nope, because you're the ignorant one. It's your brain I want to engage, not the people whose brains are already engaged.
Science has not ditched philosophy at all. Poor science has ditched philosophy. The kind of people who treat science like an infallible religion have ditched philosophy. That would be you by the way. By simplifying all of the worlds equations into 1+1=2, you're wilfully missing the point. Wilfully missing a lot of points, I bet. When you ask a scientist "Will the outcome of this experiment be this based on these calculations you have provided?" they will never say "Yes, absolutely." The response is always "There's a good chance." or "Most likely."
My point, my whole point, is that you have to leave room for error. Because every now and then, one is going to crop up.

Also, there's a difference between sitting around pondering, and pondering and then going to figure it out. So I go and figure it out. The people who say "Science says this as a fact" and then move on with their day are the people who just kind of sit around and accept what they're given. That would be you, by the way.

Also, the philosophy of hippies revolves entirely around justifying the legalization of various drugs. This isn't really that discussion.

Editing to add: This discussion is happening in this thread because my original post on this subject was on topic. It's you who dragged it out into something more. If you don't like it, that's tough. Reap what you sow.

Edited by Nathan DiYorio, 22 February 2013 - 04:28 PM.

Posted Image


#1087    shrooma

shrooma

    .goddamn sexual tyrannosaur.

  • Member
  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:27 PM

I wasn't the one spamming the page.
neither was I the one 'bickering'.
it would seem that media groups aren't the only ones responsible for cherry picking what they wish to report.....

sometimes, your signature is worth nothing at all.
.

#1088    shrooma

shrooma

    .goddamn sexual tyrannosaur.

  • Member
  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:49 PM

philosophy??
hippies smell.
discuss.
:-)
.
(i think someone has the wrong idea about hippies. 'ENTIRELY' around?!)
discuss.....

sometimes, your signature is worth nothing at all.
.

#1089    shrooma

shrooma

    .goddamn sexual tyrannosaur.

  • Member
  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:57 PM

and before you try jumping down my throat, I was merely trying to inject a little humour in to what's become a stagnant, repetative, set of posts that have descended in to nothing more than personal attacks at each others opinions, and certainly nothing that could be called 'debate'.
discuss.

sometimes, your signature is worth nothing at all.
.

#1090    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 22 February 2013 - 07:38 PM

View PostNathan DiYorio, on 22 February 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

Also, the philosophy of hippies revolves entirely around justifying the legalization of various drugs.

And you just hypocritically called someone else 'the ignorant one'...  You apparently do not know, at all, what you are talking about regarding hippies; I don't know how someone can miss the additional focus on liberal attitudes towards sexuality, organic/health foods, new age spiritualism, music, pacifism, etc.  Apparently this is one of those things that you haven't personally experienced and are therefore accepting as true based on misplaced 'faith', apparently in inaccurate stereotypes.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#1091    shrooma

shrooma

    .goddamn sexual tyrannosaur.

  • Member
  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 07:50 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 22 February 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

I don't know how someone can miss the additional focus on liberal attitudes towards sexuality, organic/health foods, new age spiritualism, music, pacifism, etc.
.
(you already answered your own question...)
:-)

sometimes, your signature is worth nothing at all.
.

#1092    Nathan DiYorio

Nathan DiYorio

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • Bitter words with sweet flavor are poison just the same.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 08:39 PM

Sorry, I didn't realize you guys couldn't recognize a tongue-in-cheek statement.

Maybe next time I'll put a big sparkly banner warning you all about a forthcoming joke.

Posted Image


#1093    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 22 February 2013 - 09:12 PM

View PostNathan DiYorio, on 22 February 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

Sorry, I didn't realize you guys couldn't recognize a tongue-in-cheek statement.

Maybe next time I'll put a big sparkly banner warning you all about a forthcoming joke.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.  I'll assume your discussion about your personal definition of 'faith' was tongue-in-cheek also, as that would definitely make more sense.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#1094    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,599 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 February 2013 - 09:28 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 February 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

Yeah.. err.. why don’t you link that false and propagandistic Fox News headline and editorial again to 'prove' your point?

Better yet, take a look here: -

“Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest.”

~bin Laden statement through Peshawar Afghan Islamic Press, 16th Sep. 01


I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.

~bin Laden interview with Karachi Ummat, 28th Sep. 01


Come on, I’m waiting for you to ignore this and repost the Fox News article.

Because that’s all you’ve got, isn’t it.

Let's take another look.

Quote


Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.
In the 18-minute tape, bin Laden, who appeared to be sitting or standing at a table against a neutral background, said: "Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened."
Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In late November 2002, a letter attributed to Osama bin Laden and translated by British Islamists surfaced, often called bin Laden's 'letter to America'. It states the motive behind the September 11 attacks as being: "because you attacked us and continue to attack us" and justifies the selection of a civilian target. Itemizing a list of perceived Western wrongdoings, the letter concludes that "the oppressed have a right to return the aggression" and hinted at further attacks. Also included are a list of demands, advice, and a statement of grievances against the American government and its people
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

http://www.guardian..../24/theobserver

Definitely doesn't sound like Osama bin Laden has proclaimed his innocence in the 911 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 February 2013 - 09:29 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1095    Nathan DiYorio

Nathan DiYorio

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • Bitter words with sweet flavor are poison just the same.

Posted 23 February 2013 - 02:15 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 22 February 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

Ah, thanks for the clarification.  I'll assume your discussion about your personal definition of 'faith' was tongue-in-cheek also, as that would definitely make more sense.

Nope.

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users