Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

You should have seen Iraq's huge super gun and I am very sure that it wasn't to be used for duck hunting.

_

I used to work for the company that cold-rolled the steel to make the collet joints they used to seal the different sections of the iraqi 'pipeline/supergun' at the same time as we were making shrapnel grenades for the isreali army, proving that death is indeed an equal opportunities employer.

when we started the contract, we all had to sign waivers to the effect that we didn't mind that the products we were making would be used in warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Edited by shrooma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he chooses to ignore it and that is not acceptable behaviour.

Nor is carpet-bombing the thread with the same question over and over. We have a word to describe that kind of behavior: 'trolling'.

I'm not goading him, I'm asking him to respond to a question and if it appears like Im goading him, then all he has to do is answer it and I'll shut up about it.

What exactly would have been accomplished by indicting Osama? For better or worse, this is all happening under the 'war on terror'. Do you also demand that we prove that every enemy soldier that we've killed actually had shot a soldier on our side, or it's unjust in some way?

If you think it is acceptable behaviour to allow a poster to continuosluy ignore questions posed by the other side, then you are going to be further disappointed.

It is acceptable behavior to ignore questions that you present if you fail to provide any explanation as to what the relevance of the question is.

And lest I forget since you find it so compelling in its repetition: "lol".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but they needed to protect the pipeline being built. It was attacked by Al Qeada numerous times along witht he embassy.

Who is going to provide security protection after U.S. troops are removed from Afghanistan next year?

Iraq had no WMD's and Saddam was used by the US, thye helped him ge tinto power.

Do you remember Halabja?

Halabja

The Halabja poison gas attack was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja inSouthern Kurdistan.

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians; thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack. The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq, was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Question is, what happened to Iraqi's chemical weapons? When Iraq saw bombers dismantling its air forces on the ground, what did Iraq do? It flew what aircraft could fly into Iran for protection. What were those trucks transporting into Syria before the second Gulf War began?

On October 3, 2003, the world digests David Kay's Iraq Survey Group report that finds no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, although it states the government intended to develop more weapons with additional capabilities. Weapons inspectors in Iraq do find some "biological laboratories" and a collection of "reference strains", including a strain of botulinum bacteria, "ought to have been declared to the UN." Kay testifies that Iraq had not fully complied with UN inspections. In some cases, equipment and materials subject to UN monitoring had been kept hidden from UN inspectors. "So there was a WMD program.

It was going ahead. It was rudimentary in many areas", Kay would say in a later interview. In other cases, Iraq had simply lied to the UN in its weapons programs. The U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had at this point cost $300 million and was projected to cost around $600 million more.

They made him attack iran. He was the US's puppet, then he stopped doing as they said and thye wanted him out.

If that was the case, why didn't the United States attack Iran and grab its oil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Is it on faith that I accept that a meteor fell in Russia last week? I didn't experience it first-hand.

Yes. All you know about that meteor is what you've been told. That makes the belief in that event one of faith.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor is carpet-bombing the thread with the same question over and over. We have a word to describe that kind of behavior: 'trolling'.

It is acceptable behavior to ignore questions that you present if you fail to provide any explanation as to what the relevance of the question is.

And lest I forget since you find it so compelling in its repetition: "lol".

_

i'm still at a loss as to why you're supplying this simpleton with the attention he/she is so obviously craving.

surely the maxim, 'ignore it, and it will go away' applies here?

after all, he/she is bringing nothing constructive to the debate, so why waste your time, energy, and bandwidth?

if I were a conspiracy theorist, I CERTAINTLY wouldn't want he/she/it on my side.

_

(waits patiently for his/her/it's incredibly juvenile response.....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is going to provide security protection after U.S. troops are removed from Afghanistan next year?

Why would thye need security then... They have alreayd shownt hem the consequences. lol

Do you remember Halabja?

Question is, what happened to Iraqi's chemical weapons? When Iraq saw bombers dismantling its air forces on the ground, what did Iraq do? It flew what aircraft could fly into Iran for protection. What were those trucks transporting into Syria before the second Gulf War began?

That's not WMD's. lol

Blair nd Bush said he had WMD's which could be LAUNCHED at the UK and US. They said they had capable range.

If Saddam had missiles capable of doign that then why didn't he launcht hem?! Why did Bush admitt he was wrong.

Why was Dr David Kelly killed...

If that was the case, why didn't the United States attack Iran and grab its oil?

They need public support first, hence the media BS that has been slowly and gently pushing it over the years, next they will coem out wiht more BS to push the war on Iran.

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

_

I used to work for the company that cold-rolled the steel to make the collet joints they used to seal the different sections of the iraqi 'pipeline/supergun' at the same time as we were making shrapnel grenades for the isreali army, proving that death is indeed an equal opportunities employer.

when we started the contract, we all had to sign waivers to the effect that we didn't mind that the products we were making would be used in warfare.

That's interesting!! Check this out.

Iraq's Super Gun

10supergun.600.gif

Sabah al-Khafaji with scrap from the supergun, at his bus factory in Iskandariya, 30 miles south of Baghdad.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And lest I forget since you find it so compelling in its repetition: "lol".

_

now THAT, is the dewdrop on the cherry on the icing on the cake.

i'm glad I wasn't the only one who found it irritating.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting!! Check this out.

_

ooh! I made the valve collets on those seals!!

(doesn't know whether to swell with pride, or deflate in shame, so reaches the consensus to stay his own happy, drunken little self....!)

thanks for the pic btw, MUCH appreciated!

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with you, all we generally know is decided on faith. Whether or not you believe in "the science" is itself based upon faith, faith that you are not being lied to by your scientific sources. And the same for any supposed transcripts. Everything you do not experience first-hand is believed almost entirely on faith.

Not necessarily. The scientific method establishes a way to analyze things without having to rely upon faith. Indeed, it insists that faith not be a part of the process or equation.

Facts and scientific analysis exist independent of faith.

Religion and superstition demand faith.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. The scientific method establishes a way to analyze things without having to rely upon faith. Indeed, it insists that faith not be a part of the process or equation.

Facts and scientific analysis exist independent of faith.

Religion and superstition demand faith.

You're depending on somebody telling you the truth about those facts. That is faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I;m not catching on at all,

With regards to my perspective yes you are.

I do not believe there is a paper trail because OBL was clever or smart or high profile. I believe there was a lack of paper trail because I do not think that OBL was behind the attacks, he might have funded them or even support them but I do not think he planned them.

You do not think funding would leave a paper trail, or that this role somehow absolves him of responsibility as the instigator who made the operation possible?

Regardless of his level of planning, do you feel he was completely ignorant to the entire plot?

There is no way that OBL could have planned an operation on this scale without help and that help I believe came from within the intelligence agencies within the US and mahybe other countries.

I also believe he had much help, but that is where we part ways. Any information from within the US was no doubt from their own people, not Intelligence. It is hardly a mastermind plot, it is barbaric, simple but so insane that nobody would expect for another human to delve this low. Just like how the US was caught of guard with Kamikaze pilots. Nobody ever imagined some insane pilot willing to fly his plane into a target. By the same token, nobody expected these fundies to be so bloodthirsty. The celebrations over the slaughter are enough to consider the entire movement a hate faction. I think 911 should be used to declare the Sunni and Shari'ah faiths a threat to society and outlawed.

I do not want to believe he was given a safe passage at all but there is plenty of evidence for it.

I do not want to be lieve it either, because if it is true, America has the option to go to war the way I see it. In fact, with the way Pakistan behaves, it is possibly just a matter of time.

I'm at a loss here?? You said that if OBL was captured, that there would be people trying to free him. I do not see how this would be the case when no one has made an attempt on his No2.

Anything from an attempt to plea bargain like they did with Weinstein, or corruption anything to outright jailbreak. As long as he exists, the possibility that he may walk the streets again some day exists. Al Qaeda has offered such bargains before, and 63 Al Qaeda escaped a Yemen correctional facility.

As an example, bargaining for peace with the Taliban includes releasing high level prisoners, and all the U.S. wants in return is a pledge that these detainees will not fight again. That is simply “peace at any cost”.

No, lets not let Sky off the hook. lol

*sigh*

If you believe he has answered the question, then all you have to do is provide the post where he supposedly answered it but you can't, if he answered it then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?? But he chooses to ignore it and that is not acceptable behaviour.

I'm not goading him, I'm asking him to respond to a question and if it appears like Im goading him, then all he has to do is answer it and I'll shut up about it.

Sky posts are non productive responses and if he as answered the question, then post it but pretending he has when he clearly hasn't is just strange behaviour.

How can I make it more clearer...

Why was OBL not indicted for the 9/11 charges?

What is so challenging about that question which requires me to guide in a different vein? How clearer can it be?

Sky's answer?

That is moot by the fact that Osama bin Laden has already admitted to his responsibility in the 911 attacks.

There you go. It is not the answer you want, it does not go into detail, but it says the indictment is not necessary because he is dead. He did not have one at the time of his death, and all the CIA said was that they had no hard evidence, that does not amount to no evidence. It also does not mean one would never surface based on new evidence as Al Qaeda are captured and tried.

Which was pretty much my answer too, the path was too shaky, so they took the quicker route and decided on a military commission. It's not the why, I agree, but it is the how. In that way (OBL dead point moot) the question has indeed been answered. Just not how you want it phrased. The FBI website says specifically no hard evidence exists, that is how things are, and that is not up to Sky to confirm nor deny.

It is bizzare that you feel the need to defend Skyeagle, you answered it in your last post and that is all it took, am I asking you again the same question? No, I moved on.

I find it both hilarious and strange that you challenge my behaviour when it is only a response to Skyeagole refusal to address a simple question which you answered in a single post.

Well I'm sorry but looking at Skyeagle posting history, I believe he would deliberately annoy me and many other posters. I have had run ins with him in the past and know his style which is to deny/ignore anything he is wrong about.

All he has to do is answer a simple question, which yourself answered in a single post.

I find it more bizarre that you feel such a need to defend your behaviour and leave the title wanting. I know Sky, you know Sky, what is napalming him with the same question going to result in? Either a closed thread or pages of the same question. I simply propose we accept the situation for what it is and move on. His answer is that the FBI did not indict because there is no need to indict a corpse. As a member of Al Qaeda, he was a target anyway. Why bother with legal hassels when he can simply be removed as collateral damage? Did not happen soon enough, so the seals sorted the problem.

I always address whatever questions are put in front of me and I expect the person I debate to be honest and do the same, Skyeagle is not honest and ignores anything which challenges his position and continues on with the self deception. If you think it is acceptable behaviour to allow a poster to continuosluy ignore questions posed by the other side, then you are going to be further disappointed.

An honorable position, and I applaud your attention to detail, and in fact, I find you a polite and well spoken chap. I think it is just a lack of communication and differing views. I know Sky can be stubborn, so can I ,and look at how many times you have repeated the question, so can you. I do not blame you for your actions, I have just been there and done that, and would rather we focus on the subject at hand if that is OK, you and I have spent far too much effort on Sky when there is a more relevant item to discuss is all. I have asked him questions many times too, seeking the very answer I desire, it did not happen, and in retrospect, it was probably a bit arrogant of me to expect him to think like me. I am not disappointed, this is not unusual, I would just rather we move on, and I can stop scrolling through pages of the same question that you and I know is answered as far as Sky is concerned.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for being honest enough to admit you are placing faith in the official story, and thereby in the US Government press releases.

Can you read? Honest question. Do you have some dodgy software reading this to you, or a relative who does not speak English?

This was the post you quoted which in no way indicates media. Good God man, dod you read another post and accidentally answer mine? You seem to be speaking to yourself here.

I Said:

The truth exists not in stories, but in engineering reports and analyses that confirm that planes hit the towers.

You know, numbers and stuff like tensile strengths, melting points and procedures , is that a bit easier to understand? You will not find those in the headlines.

I do not bother with CT until this thread, actual facts are all that really matter.

CT's come from the media. Someone is making money from this, in fact, many people are, and you are funding their hobby so they do not have to get a real job.

Now, I am finding opinions are mattering because young people are beginning to consider CT's a reason to consider Jihad

I just deleted a large angry paragraph outlining my personal reasons for this. However, they are indeed personal, and that too like that other points above, has nothing to do with media, but the state of the situation and what it is doing to my own country. I have seen personal examples of this CT altering young people. It is disgusting. I think if one could show you the full extent of your "search for the truth" that you just might have another look at yourself as a human being.

So please tell me, how on earth did you pull the media as a reference from that?

Blind Faith was the name of a band several decades ago, and the driver of most of the public perception--faith that the government does not deceive them, and has their best interests at heart.

I know more about that than you could ever imagine. Clapton Baker Winwood and Grech. I played in a band here in Oz traveling the East coast for s decade a half. Seen EC live, met Baker, I happen to know what goes on backstage, bet you don't. With you being an expert in blind faith, and I do not challenge that!, you seem to be rather awful at a description there. Not really following the second part of your sentence. Or are you trying to be philosophical or some crap?

If you actually listen to the tapes, or read the transcripts, you will see what I mean. Without actually listening to the tapes or reading the transcripts, your blind faith does not qualify you as having any sort of informed opinion on the subject. Indeed, it qualifies you has have an UNinformed opinion on the matter.

How about the actual parameters of damage known to have occurred prefer to stick with numbers as opposed to hearsay.

I sure am as uniformed as anyone in the thread who was not personally there, were you? However, you seem to feel you have an advantage over everyone else debating their view of the information available hell, you do not even read posts as I proved above, what makes you think you are more informed BR? Honestly, that is very far from the impression you give me.

More important that the script-like quality of the calls is the fact that cell phones do not work at altitude and airspeed. That is, the cell phone calls as described in the story were physically impossible to make. Yes, as you implied, science frequently trumps blind faith.

Do not tell me, prove it, what height were the calls made from, and at what speed, and what makes this impossible?

Script like quality? So your a vocal expert too I take it?

How did people on flight 93 call home? And how did they fool relatives into thinking they were taling to loved ones, and why are people crying over dead people who made these calls - if it is impossible?? I am a great believer in science, when it explain's these questions from flight 93, I will be suitably impressed.

In the American literature, Huck Finn observed that "faith is when you believe something you know ain't true." That's where so many people become hypnotized by the constant repetition of a story.

Well, I guess these CT's have to get of the ground somehow don't they. That people eagerly swallow them up is a tad embarrassing quite frankly.

Huck Finn was good with lessons. Another he taught was to fool people into doing your work so you can go play. Like the people who create CT's and sell them via media outlets. But at least they do not make Fox News, what with Murdoch in there and all, so they need to rely on companies with less stringent guidelines like Vanity Fair or Pravda. Personally, I think that is pretty telling in itself. And I know the CT's "aint true".

Considering how far you have wavered from my post, might I suggest glasses. I do not mean that offensively, rather the opposite. I myself only found out the year before last I needed them, and it really was quite a shock to me. Many things became easier, and going by your first paragraph I would prefer to think it is a mechanical problem, not deliberate ignorance of another persons post. The way you seem to be taking your own direction there indicates to me there is a major communications gap here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're depending on somebody telling you the truth about those facts. That is faith.

What, about the Russian Meteor? If you have some dollars science can help you there too, you do not need dollars for science, but you do to collect proof, many people are now hunting for fragments, if you have the money spare, you can do so too. Isotopic ratio will confirm it's origin so all you need is a metal detetor, a plane ticket, a friendly lab and a half decent map showing you the path of the meteor. And perhaps a smattering of luck that everyone else does not beat you to all the fragments. Science gives you the tools to follow these things up yourself of one is determined enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

_

ooh! I made the valve collets on those seals!!

(doesn't know whether to swell with pride, or deflate in shame, so reaches the consensus to stay his own happy, drunken little self....!)

thanks for the pic btw, MUCH appreciated!

:-)

Shame you are not in Oz, I could use a good contact in mechanical services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion and superstition demand faith.

Yes, and what forms the basis of all jurisprudence within Sunni Islam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What, about the Russian Meteor? If you have some dollars science can help you there too, you do not need dollars for science, but you do to collect proof, many people are now hunting for fragments, if you have the money spare, you can do so too. Isotopic ratio will confirm it's origin so all you need is a metal detetor, a plane ticket, a friendly lab and a half decent map showing you the path of the meteor. And perhaps a smattering of luck that everyone else does not beat you to all the fragments. Science gives you the tools to follow these things up yourself of one is determined enough.

Yes, but until you have done all this, you are merely taking it on faith that the event has occurred.

Edit: I think a lot of people are misconstruing the words "Faith" and "False." Faith is simply the belief in something you've been told without experiencing first hand.

Edited by Xetan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

_

ooh! I made the valve collets on those seals!!

(doesn't know whether to swell with pride, or deflate in shame, so reaches the consensus to stay his own happy, drunken little self....!)

thanks for the pic btw, MUCH appreciated!

:-)

You're welcome! :tu: I am very sure that Saddam had no intention of using that super gun for duck season, or, was it rabbit season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but until you have done all this, you are merely taking it on faith that the event has occurred.

Edit: I think a lot of people are misconstruing the words "Faith" and "False." Faith is simply the belief in something you've been told without experiencing first hand.

It's not faith because it is demonstrable. Money is a hurdle only i that example.

Faith is belief in something no matter what the conditions demand. If a thing is demonstrable it is not faith. I would call religion faith, but evolution demonstrable fact. A theory can confirm a thing without experiencing something, math can confirm some things without witnessing it first hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people are misconstruing the words "Faith" and "False." Faith is simply the belief in something you've been told without experiencing first hand.

No, I think the issue is instead that you are entirely ignoring the notion of 'evidence'. It's not by faith I accept a meteor fell, it's by evaluating the evidence and possible explanations. There are multiple videos, by different people of the event, hundreds of people injured. Yes it is possible this was all faked, but is that the most likely explanation? Where is faith coming into play in this rational analysis of the evidence?

The way you are defining it, there's no reason to exclude 'experiencing it first hand' from being faith, there is abundant evidence showing how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. If you would have witnessed the meteor you'd be taking it on faith that it was a meteor, it could have been multiple objects including manmade ones, you and others could be hallucinating, you may be dreaming, we may all be living in the Matrix, etc. Yes, ultimately you can't really 'know' anything and everything is taken on some degree of faith, but treating those words that way doesn't really accomplish anything except making the words 'know' and 'faith' useless.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

_

now THAT, is the dewdrop on the cherry on the icing on the cake.

i'm glad I wasn't the only one who found it irritating.

welcome to the forum shrooma....it's a pity that booNyzarC has sadly vacated UM...I think you would have got on very well...

lol... ;)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you read? Honest question. Do you have some dodgy software reading this to you, or a relative who does not speak English?

This was the post you quoted which in no way indicates media. Good God man, dod you read another post and accidentally answer mine? You seem to be speaking to yourself here.

I Said:

The truth exists not in stories, but in engineering reports and analyses that confirm that planes hit the towers.

You know, numbers and stuff like tensile strengths, melting points and procedures , is that a bit easier to understand? You will not find those in the headlines.

I do not bother with CT until this thread, actual facts are all that really matter.

CT's come from the media. Someone is making money from this, in fact, many people are, and you are funding their hobby so they do not have to get a real job.

Now, I am finding opinions are mattering because young people are beginning to consider CT's a reason to consider Jihad

I just deleted a large angry paragraph outlining my personal reasons for this. However, they are indeed personal, and that too like that other points above, has nothing to do with media, but the state of the situation and what it is doing to my own country. I have seen personal examples of this CT altering young people. It is disgusting. I think if one could show you the full extent of your "search for the truth" that you just might have another look at yourself as a human being.

So please tell me, how on earth did you pull the media as a reference from that?

I know more about that than you could ever imagine. Clapton Baker Winwood and Grech. I played in a band here in Oz traveling the East coast for s decade a half. Seen EC live, met Baker, I happen to know what goes on backstage, bet you don't. With you being an expert in blind faith, and I do not challenge that!, you seem to be rather awful at a description there. Not really following the second part of your sentence. Or are you trying to be philosophical or some crap?

How about the actual parameters of damage known to have occurred prefer to stick with numbers as opposed to hearsay.

I sure am as uniformed as anyone in the thread who was not personally there, were you? However, you seem to feel you have an advantage over everyone else debating their view of the information available hell, you do not even read posts as I proved above, what makes you think you are more informed BR? Honestly, that is very far from the impression you give me.

Do not tell me, prove it, what height were the calls made from, and at what speed, and what makes this impossible?

Script like quality? So your a vocal expert too I take it?

How did people on flight 93 call home? And how did they fool relatives into thinking they were taling to loved ones, and why are people crying over dead people who made these calls - if it is impossible?? I am a great believer in science, when it explain's these questions from flight 93, I will be suitably impressed.

Well, I guess these CT's have to get of the ground somehow don't they. That people eagerly swallow them up is a tad embarrassing quite frankly.

Huck Finn was good with lessons. Another he taught was to fool people into doing your work so you can go play. Like the people who create CT's and sell them via media outlets. But at least they do not make Fox News, what with Murdoch in there and all, so they need to rely on companies with less stringent guidelines like Vanity Fair or Pravda. Personally, I think that is pretty telling in itself. And I know the CT's "aint true".

Considering how far you have wavered from my post, might I suggest glasses. I do not mean that offensively, rather the opposite. I myself only found out the year before last I needed them, and it really was quite a shock to me. Many things became easier, and going by your first paragraph I would prefer to think it is a mechanical problem, not deliberate ignorance of another persons post. The way you seem to be taking your own direction there indicates to me there is a major communications gap here.

No sir, there is no communications gap here, unless you want to consider semantics as such. If I were speaking to myself, I doubt you would be replying, no?

It was YOU who first used the word "faith", and I merely responded to your use of that word. Apologies if I missed the precise nuance you intended with your use of the word. And certainly, "faith" is crucial to believing the official story, because all the "facts" contradict that story.

Are you calling the tapes and their transcripts "hearsay"?

Cell phone calls from aircraft higher than about 1500 feet AGL and speeds greater than about 150 knots are impossible. I have experienced that phenomenon many many many times flying both helicopters and airplanes. Others have demonstrated that fact and written papers about it. That you choose to believe otherwise is another fine demonstration of your Supreme Act Of Faith.

You don't care about facts, or else you would have a different view. You care about keeping the official story alive. Neither you nor anybody else can prove that story you believe, for the simple reason that all the facts we have work against it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Osama bin Laden had declared war on the United States and has admitted to his responsibility in the 911 attacks so there is nothing for you to debate upon in that respect.

Since you have yet to answer these questions, I will ask again. Which one of at least 4 different Osama Bin Laden's made this claim, all 4 verified as OBL by our government? Who was the OBL who said he had nothing to do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor is carpet-bombing the thread with the same question over and over. We have a word to describe that kind of behavior: 'trolling'.

Oh but its fine when others such as Skyeagle carpet bomb the thread?? lol

I love how panto debunkers have no shame and do not mind highlighting their double standards for all to see.

What exactly would have been accomplished by indicting Osama?
Errr!! How about building a case so that if he was captured alive, the US could then prosecute him with all the evidence they had collected and charge him. Its called the rule of law...like they are currently doing with Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

I suppose if you are going to take that attitude, then why bother with indictments at all if according to your logic, you can't imagine what they accomplish. What was the point of indicting him for his other crimes if nothing would be accomplished?

It is clear from your response, it upsets you to think that there was no hard evidence to connect OBL to 9/11, hence your nonsensical rhetoric. I know that the law is only afforded to those who you think deserve it but the fact is the law should be afforded to all.

For better or worse, this is all happening under the 'war on terror'. Do you also demand that we prove that every enemy soldier that we've killed actually had shot a soldier on our side, or it's unjust in some way?
Well if you go around indiscriminately killing people who you think may or may not have killed soldiers, then you are going to kill innocent people and more importantly make people angry at the injustices which will form more insurgents.
It is acceptable behavior to ignore questions that you present if you fail to provide any explanation as to what the relevance of the question is.
I love how these guys come rushing to Skyeages defence, it's very noble.

What questions have I ignored? I think you'll find in Skyeagles spam-a-thon, I accept that OBL admitted his guilt.

And not it's not acceptable to ignore questions just because you do not know or understand the relevance of it. That is why you say something along the lines of "I don't know!" or "Its because of....X" and then you ask the relevance of it if you truly do not understand.

And lest I forget since you find it so compelling in its repetition: "lol".
Well as I always say, life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.

If you do not like my lols, then all you have to do is ask Skyeagle to stop ignoring my simple question by answering it instead of repeatedly dodging it and repeating himself.

I know you are here to defend Skyeagle and it is very sweet of you but I think he is big enough to fight his own battles.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.