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.


* * * - - 2 votes

Talking Turkey


  • Please log in to reply
900 replies to this topic

#571    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,965 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:24 PM

As a 22 year old lieutenant US Army, I discovered that the CIA was in the dope business in Southeast Asia.

Now maybe it was simply a gaggle of rogue agents, but opium was being carried on their Air America helicopters, under orders of supervisors.


#572    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,670 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:27 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 October 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

As a 22 year old lieutenant US Army, I discovered that the CIA was in the dope business in Southeast Asia.

Now maybe it was simply a gaggle of rogue agents, but opium was being carried on their Air America helicopters, under orders of supervisors.

Evidence please! Besides, what does that have to do with the 9/11 attacks?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#573    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,965 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 19 October 2012 - 06:59 PM

We're talking turkey Sky.

A pilot friend of mine went to work for AA after he got out of the Army.  He told the story, and he was not making it up.  He and the rest of us ideal young aviators were shocked to discover it.  Kinda like losing one's virginity, if you get my drift.

And Sky--I already know that you don't believe me sir.  And, Chief, I could not care less.


#574    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:04 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 October 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Evidence please! Besides, what does that have to do with the 9/11 attacks?

how the hell do you think black ops get funded?


#575    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:05 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 October 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

We're talking turkey Sky.

A pilot friend of mine went to work for AA after he got out of the Army.  He told the story, and he was not making it up.  He and the rest of us ideal young aviators were shocked to discover it.  Kinda like losing one's virginity, if you get my drift.

And Sky--I already know that you don't believe me sir.  And, Chief, I could not care less.

some people literally cannot handle the truth.


#576    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,965 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:14 PM

Some people are allergic to the truth.


#577    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,670 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:26 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

how the hell do you think black ops get funded?

Taxpayers money! I am very sure that all of that money didn't come out of the wallets of the 'black ops' guys.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 October 2012 - 07:34 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#578    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,670 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:28 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

some people literally cannot handle the truth.

That has been proven time after time with 9/11 conspiracist and I am still waiting for P4T to make corrections on their website because I know from experience that much of what they have posted is false.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#579    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,670 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:29 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 October 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Some people are allergic to the truth.

Those within the 9/11 Truth Movement tend to distort the truth, which has been proven time after time after time. :yes:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#580    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,670 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:33 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 October 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

We're talking turkey Sky.

A pilot friend of mine went to work for AA after he got out of the Army.  He told the story, and he was not making it up.  He and the rest of us ideal young aviators were shocked to discover it.  Kinda like losing one's virginity, if you get my drift.

What it is, you are trying to demonize the CIA in order to add sparks for the 9/11 attacks and besides, drug use in Vietnam was no secret.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 October 2012 - 07:45 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#581    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,481 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:26 AM

(Moved from Pentagon Video thread)

View PostQ24, on 19 October 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Ok, who do you think you’re kidding? I think you know exactly what I’m saying – your stall is clearly set out. I’ve seen it many times... the new member joins a discussion, claims to be objective (perhaps even fooling themselves)... it’s effective but never lasts long before their true/existing beliefs takeover.  I’ve never seen anyone change their mind to any significant degree after committing to a position... they either have an open mind from the start or they don’t; they either have the ability to accept a 9/11 false flag or they don’t. Sorry but I don’t think you seriously entertain any of the evidence I present suggestive of an alternative to the official story, much less have the desire to add it all up – for you the challenge is to dispute/maintain your existing worldview and I now know which side of the fence you are going to sit by default every time. For this reason I feel comfortable bracketing you with faithful adherents of the official story. After all, you might only have known about the official theories of NIST and Bazant a few weeks ago but you do believe their conclusions, don’t you? I think you will fall in line with any part of the official story where it matters. Of course, and bearing in mind you certainly have not had chance to research those official theories in full or even go through the complete for/against arguments yet, I’m sorry to say my point regarding your default loyalty is proven. So please, save the innocent, “What official story am I faithful to Q?” I’d love you to prove me wrong... but I can’t see it.

That's a lot of text to write to simply demonstrate that you don't seem to even entertain the possibility that people disagree with your positions for non-biased, non-faith-based reasons, or maybe it's just specifically me.  You seem to have a glaring problem with a significant lack of humility in your argumentation, you deny that these might be topics of legitimate controversy (and that's me being nice, there isn't any evidence that most experts consider a lot of this guff legimitately controversial at all) and that people honestly and rationally disagree with you.  Who does disagree with you for non-biased reasons, Q, anyone?  You've pretty much stated what my problem is:  you are presenting evidence that is merely suggestive of an alternative to the official story.  I am skeptical of this idea that you need to 'add it all up'; it's not the quantity, it's the quality, it makes it sound like I'm going to get to point 143 and say 'a-ha, of course!', which, hey maybe that's the way it really does work, but I doubt it, especially since you seem to think the evidence is all of equal strength.  My honest appraisal so far is that you haven't presented anything that does not have a reasonable non-demolition alternative, I may have forgotten something so feel free to correct me.  Actually, maybe this is one of our fundamental differences, do you think it's even necessary to address these non-demolition alternatives, or is it sufficient to you to only show that a demolition is a possibility?

I'm just going to let you have your say about the 'official story', whatever, it doesn't really have anything to do with anything.  The purpose of this thread was to hear the case for a CT as W Tell felt that CTists had an uphill battle because of the government's story, and so I offered to attempt to hear it out from scratch.  You and I have specifically narrowed this to a discussion of a demolition, so we are supposed to be analyzing the case for it.  I'm not blaming you for the various conversations concerning the official story, I've instigated most of those, but I have never thought that the subject of this conversation was, 'who has the better explanation, the official story or the CTs'.  I know you've tried, but I think you've very much failed, to show how disputing a certain aspect of the official story can be used as an argument for demolition (your founded but unscientific conclusion is that the results of a scientific study pretty much eliminated the possibility of a collapse due to fire and damage for example), but that really isn't the case, as I've said before it just moves us back to 'we don't know'.  To your question, no, I don't believe Bazant's conclusions, I can't even adequately explain his study or his conclusions so I can't have a valid opinion on it specifically.  I do currently think that a collapse due to fire and damage is at the very least an equal alternative to a demolition alternative, and certainly satisfies Occam better than a demolition.

Quote

I have no problem providing a complete evidence based case for the demolition (except that it would be a mammoth task in a single post). I did notice that each time I attempted to turn the discussion toward that aim of evidence for the demolition previously on the Talking Turkey thread you haven’t responded for whatever reason. For example, the WTC2 molten flow, the witness evidence of explosions, amongst more. So we never really got going in that direction - the discussion remained focussed on failure of the official studies. I do think that is an important area for consideration, but don’t criticise me for following that line when your responses, or lack of, determined the way ahead.

What do you mean, 'for whatever reason'?  I've told you multiple times that I've purposely put some topics on hold because I want to talk about others, that I've gotten too busy to respond, and I've specifically pointed out my despair at your 'no best evidence' position, and am still deciding ultimately how to proceed on this without going through hundreds of points for the next few years with you.  Not that it's not interesting stuff, but again I don't want it to turn into 'work'.  At a meta-level, is there another explanation for the WTC2 molten flow/thermite reaction than a loose thermite demolition charge, or doesn't it matter?  It might be a thermite device, is that good enough?  There's no other explanation for the 'explosion' sounds, really?  Are there any reports from survivors in stairwells having the wall blasted in from the pre-collapse charges?  The list of things that I'm sure you've seen of things that explode in fires cannot be the cause of these explosions?  I don't think I can tell the difference necessarily between an explosion and something large or loud falling, our other earwitnesses can?

Quote

Yes, ‘how do you know that?’ is an excellent question. But your presentation of the situation above is horribly backward. Let’s get it straight – it was initially your claim, your argument, your denial which raised that the WTC demolition theory cannot be correct due to these hundreds of thousands of experts who have not protested in its favour.

It would help if we're going to get it straight that you turn down the exaggeration knob long enough so that you were actually being truthful.  Never, never, never, have I ever said 'cannot be correct', quote me please.  What I have argued is that, especially when you set the surreal standard of 'blatant', that the fact that an overwhelming part of the relevant scientific community has not expressed any support for truther's theories, and many have done exactly the opposite, is a data point that needs a satisfactory explanation.  Do you disagree?  Considering how long we talked about it and the armchair pseudo-psychologizing you've offered up to explain this point, I didn't think so.  That seems a lot straighter to me than your retelling.  I've given you plenty of opportunity to back off and get real on your 'blatant' demolition nonsense, but you don't, that is your decision, not mine.

Quote

It is very firmly you who profess to know their mindset upon which your argument depends. And yes, indeed to that I speculate of the possibilities which show that your contention is unproven – my line of reasoning here is a counter to your pontification. I don’t think we should be drawing conclusions based on any of this – you do. I don’t believe the number of experts either side of the fence prove our arguments right or wrong either way (I mentioned to you before how I don’t put too much faith in ‘experts’) – apparently you do; it was your initial argument – it was your claim they should all be coming forward.

The number of experts don't prove our arguments right or wrong either way.  Here's my argument.  'Blatant' means 'obvious', Q.  Obvious demolition involvement in the most famous, spectacular building collapses in history means that many/most of the experts in the relevant fields, who have manyfold more experience and expertise than you in evaluating these specialized questions, must know or realize that the buildings were demolished.  Yet, they don't say anything, and many argue the opposite.  If you don't think this needs an adequate explanation or is curious at all, we can drop it and let everyone decide for themselves what they think about it, I'm very comfortable with my criticism and you seem equally so with your explanation.

Quote

You don’t need to explain that to me, I already raised this potential problem of circumstantial evidence first on the other thread, post #457: “this [reliance on circumstantial evidence] makes it terribly difficult to prove the overall case to anyone who wants to take up an opposing position”.

You may have raised it, even with your 'sale' of it with the word 'want', now you just need to address it.  This circumstantial evidence point is exactly why I keep asking about why you just acknowledge one possibility so frequently; it is the other possibilities that are currently causing a big problem for your circumstantial case, they have to be not just minimized, but pretty much eliminated since your evidence is this circumstantial.

Quote

Now perhaps prove you are not a pseudo-skeptic and, instead of avoiding it as you have done to date, apply your quote and ‘benefit of the doubt’ to judgments of the official story. For one example, the circumstantial evidence that the guilt of bin Laden, for which we went to war, relies upon. I’ll say it again because it’s so important – the version of skepticism you have demonstrated leads to war, mine leads first to investigation.

This is a perfect example of what I think maybe the biggest problem as I mentioned above, we are having two different discussions in two different contexts.  I am not the person to best defend the official story, I never thought that was my role here.  And come on, 'the version of skepticism you have demonstrated leads to war', ridiculous.  My version of skepticism has one purpose, emotionless and unbiased by the implications:  to try to ascertain what is most likely to be true, and most of all, to ensure that what I believe is true is actually well supported.   Your overcertainty distorts, omits, and spins the evidence to suit your argument, and you try to argue that that's okay because of the implications.  Here's another overconfident quote I'm sure you've heard:  "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."[.  This coincides well on your consequences angle also; much better for us to go destroy Iraq than suffer an atomic terrorist attack in the US, no?   Do you need more examples of one-sided evidence and overconfident statements being used to lead us to war?  That's where your brand of argumentation, definitely non-skeptical, takes us.

You've brought up Bin Laden a few times, I'm not sure why, I think it's because you're trying to tie me to the official story or something and score points, not sure.  Is the official story being incorrect concerning Bin Laden's role a piece of evidence for a demolition?  If not, since I'm drowning in points already I don't think I'm ready to cover him.  From what very little I've read about it, about all I can say is that I think there is a misconception among the general populace that he was more directly involved than he may actually have been.

Quote

Regarding the general state of circumstantial evidence, when all is considered for the official story and an alternative version of events, the corroboration of facts within every area of 9/11 favours the latter. This is not coincidence, nor should it be the case given a ‘natural’ terrorist attack. This is why I hold my views.

That's cool, it's not really an argument, but it's fine.  So far I don't find the coincidences at all remarkable, and I don't know yet what you think has been shown that has no other non-demolition explanation and is clearly inconsistent with a non-demolition collapse.  Saying that the official story is wrong doesn't make the demolition theory correct.

Quote

It didn’t come with any one piece of evidence, thus why I say no one piece of evidence is ‘best’. It is only with a holding and understanding of all circumstances and evidence before, during and after 9/11 (and it is vast) that one can confidently reach the conclusions I have – a level of research which you yourself admit to being far from. Perhaps this is a contributing reason to why my conclusions come across as disproportionally confident to yourself – you just don’t currently see what I do, whether for want or lack of knowledge, and I can’t hope to put it all down in any single post.

Well, I'll have to see how that plays out then, I don't know how convincing I'll find a mass of maybes if nothing of greater evidentiary value is forthcoming.  I'm not sure how you are going to escape the burden of proof and presumption of innocence inherent to your circumstantial evidence argument either.

Quote

On the Talking Turkey thread I have provided information that the CIA and a Saudi government agent assisted the hijackers prior to the attack – that is not in doubt, all left to determine is if that assistance was intentional or not. And if we cannot determine it beyond doubt, then you have no right to deny support to an investigation through misplaced confidence in the official story.

Don't intelligence services sometimes intentionally help potential criminals in order to sting them?  Just happened recently I believe, they set up some guy who thought he had a van full of explosives and was going to blow up some building, but he was working with undercover people the whole time.  Regardless, and I realize I may be bringing something over from the other thread, does this have anything to do with a demolition?  They may have been assisted in a plot to just crash planes into buildings?

Quote

Leading on from the above, I do believe that what you describe as my “gems” and “excuses” are legitimate. Well, legitimate cause for concern and investigation, not so legitimate when you produce exactly the same level of gems and excuses that went on to support a war. You must understand that whenever either of us calls ‘well it could be’ in regard to 9/11, that we have a problem – more so for the official story considering a war was based on the event. But I think I already know what you will do in response to that information on the Talking Turkey thread – produce exactly such speculation as ‘well it could be’ and in your overconfidence declare everything satisfactory; no investigation needed. Again, I hope you prove me wrong.

Again, then we're having two different conversations; I don't consider this to be official story vs. false flag theory grudge-match.  I am trying to talk about what is true here; the consequences have nothing to do with that, that is a fallacy, 'appeal to consequences'.  What exactly is wrong with me or anyone taking the position, "I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11 other than planes were hijacked and crashed into buildings and they collapsed.  There isn't enough evidence to say too much beyond that."?  Because that's exactly the scenario where 'well it could be' is a problem for you and not for me.  Any time you attack the official story, I don't really have to say anything unless you try to spin it into support for a demolition, which doesn't usually logically follow; I can just say, and this was going to be my original approach with W Tell, 'okay, let's assume you're right, I now have no confidence that point X of the official story is actually correct, I now don't know.', and see then what was left with which to make the CTs case.

Quote

Obviously my position wouldn’t change at all, though this appears the type of confession you are waiting on to change your mind... actually, I still don’t think you would change your mind, rather you would produce a gem or excuse, criticise me for ever raising it and appeal to your perception of my overconfidence.

I thought I asked if your certainty would change, not your position.  I really don't think it's just my perception of overconfidence; we've gone all over 'blatant', and how many times are you going to use the word 'prove' unliterally?  This wouldn't automatically change my mind, this guy would have to be checked out, people confess falsely to crimes they didn't commit, we learn that at Pseudo-Skeptics School.  It's at least something semi-solid to try and connect your myriad other points to.

Quote

I have to keep repeating that because it’s important to understand there’s no single piece of evidence that’s going to ‘blow your socks off’. The process of understanding is to build the case until comes ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’. Do you know I researched 9/11 for two years striving to understand the full evidence available, all the while holding out that the official story may be accurate, before I took my current position or dared produce anything like the confidence I do now? It’s not a view you can easily take on after accepting the official narrative for so long and your selective derision of individual points says only to me that your wider knowledge and/or understanding are lacking.

I could easily accept your view if you had a good case for it, the very fact that it took you two years of study leads me to believe, again, that it's not as blatant as you state.  You've provided me a fine scaffold waiting for more evidence to come forward to fit into it, I'm much more able to evaluate any future discoveries in the context of both the official and the truthers theories.  I think you are putting part of each straw on the camel's back no matter how tenuous or specious the reasoning, whereas I would set the straw aside until I find better reason to add it.  I'm not sure if or how I'm going to see a more meta-level argument regarding how all these points shouldn't exist or connect together if I'm able to find other explanations for each of them.  The Israeli agents could have just known about the attacks, they could have been involved in a demolition, the buildings could have been demolished and the agents had nothing to do with it, they could have been in New York for some other intelligence reason; maybe this gets part of the straw, but this is one of the better points you've offered and to me it's still somewhat middling.

Quote

Also to add, I’m sure you know it’s not cool to be a bigger smartass so you’re welcome to win that one. And if I do come across like a smartass I’m sorry about that, it’s not intended, more a result of another cause – confidence or frustration for many reasons, being honest to a fault with my opinion, humour or just my tone not translating well into text, etc. I know the discussion can seem a little personal sometimes, as I see it that’s unavoidable when large disagreements arise and we get into why we each think the way we do, but I am enjoying your posts, so far – I wouldn’t be challenging you to respond on the Talking Turkey thread otherwise.

Indeed, it's been a good conversation, and again I think we're fine as far as tone and attacks, I've been in far far worse, this is sunshine and ice cream in comparison, and this stuff doesn't phase me, we're yappin on the intertubez.  I see some light at the end of the tunnel of work swampage, so my next step is to respond to your post you mentioned and see if we can get back to our points.  I do want to think about, and feel free to continue, this conversation about epistemological topics, I need to think about to about how to proceed; are we talking about the demolition case, or are we comparing two theories?  Or should I just approach it more benignly and look at it as you giving me a brief tour of the case for a CT, not sure yet.

Edited by Liquid Gardens, 23 October 2012 - 02:38 AM.

"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

#582    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,670 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:36 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

some people literally cannot handle the truth.

This is reality!

The terrorist group responsible for the  Bojinka Plot, and the 9/11 attacks wish to continue their campaign of terror.

Quote


Al Qaeda '9/11 the second' plot foiled in Jordan

AMMAN, Jordan –  Jordanian authorities say they foiled an Al Qaeda plot to attack shopping malls and Western diplomatic missions using suicide bombers, booby-trapped cars and rockets smuggled in from Syria on a date terrorists dub "9/11 the second."

Some 11 suspected Al Qaeda-linked militants were arrested for what would have been the terror group's first attack since a triple hotel bombing in Amman almost seven years ago, which killed 60 people, the government said Sunday. Al Qaeda has targeted Jordan because of the government's alliance with the United States and its 1994 peace treaty with Israel. The foiled plot was to take place on Nov. 9, seven years to the day after the Amman attacks. While American tradition lists numeric dates by month, day and year - hence Sept. 11 is known as 9/11 - the international protocol is day, month and year, meaning Nov. 9 is noted as 9/11.

"They were plotting deadly terror attacks on vital institutions, shopping centers and diplomatic missions," he said. "They sought to destabilize Jordan," he said. "They plotted against Jordan's national security." A statement by Jordanian intelligence said an investigation showed that the group "adopts the ideology of Al Qaeda" and that it nicknamed its terror plot as "9/11 the second."

http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews

___________________________________________________


The Bojinka Plot

The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale three phase Islamist attack by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The attack would involve a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II, an air bombing of 11 airliners and their approximately 4,000 passengers that would have flown from Asia to the United States, and Murad's proposal to crash a plane into the CIA's headquarters in Fairfax County, Virginia, in addition to the plan to bomb multiple aeroplanes.


The term also refers to a combination of plots by Yousef and Mohammed to take place in January 1995,

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bojinka_plot

Take note the CIA was also a target, so either we learn from history, or we don't.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 October 2012 - 05:53 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#583    tribalactivity

tribalactivity

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 248 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2006

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:46 PM



Evidence please! Besides, what does that have to do with the 9/11 attacks?
[/quote

Iran Contra is an example! Why do you think the US had interests in Vietnam? the Golden Triangle! Afghanistan is the same Hashish and Opium!  check out the story of Howard Marks the drug trafficker details CIA and M16 involvement


#584    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,670 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:32 PM

View Posttribalactivity, on 23 October 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Evidence please! Besides, what does that have to do with the 9/11 attacks?
[/quote

Iran Contra is an example! Why do you think the US had interests in Vietnam? the Golden Triangle! Afghanistan is the same Hashish and Opium!  check out the story of Howard Marks the drug trafficker details CIA and M16 involvement

That is not evidence, and nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If we wanted an excuse to go to war, we could have done so when terrorist blew up our embassies, blew up Pan Am 103, bombed WTC1 in 1993, and bombed the USS Cole, but we didn't go to war.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#585    tribalactivity

tribalactivity

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 248 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2006

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:00 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 October 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:



That is not evidence, and nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If we wanted an excuse to go to war, we could have done so when terrorist blew up our embassies, blew up Pan Am 103, bombed WTC1 in 1993, and bombed the USS Cole, but we didn't go to war.

That's right they went to war in Afghanistan because the Taliban were destroying the Opium fields and also to takeover the area with high interests in The Caspian Sea. Only Iran and Syria are in the way of controlling the entire area





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users