Re: Bin Laden dead?

by **SouLCasT** Mon May 02, 2011 5:41 pm

Aragorn wrote:
SouLCasT wrote:
Aragorn wrote:* Hierarchy

*Al Qaeda

Good Lord, people. L2usegoogleforspellcheckifyou'retoolazytogetadictionary

Gotcha'. Grammar nazy beaten.

Aragorn wrote:* Hierarchy

*Al Qaeda

Good Lord, people. L2usegoogleforspellcheckifyou'retoolazytogetadictionary

Actually wait, you didn't beat me at all...My sentence is correct. There's not two t's or anything and I haven't edited my post....I win...

Pto admited to edit your post. You fail at winning.

3-0 for me atm.

by **Bulldog** Mon May 02, 2011 5:44 pm

Doesn't change anything and if anything it makes it worse for us.

by **Ptolemy** Mon May 02, 2011 5:45 pm

I do not know what you are talking about...

by **Aragorn** Mon May 02, 2011 5:51 pm

*looks through the thread* I don't see where he said he edited the post and if he would have, it would say underneath it "edited 1 times by Ptolemy" It's not there Me:2 You:0

by **SouLCasT** Mon May 02, 2011 6:00 pm

[/quote]

SouLCasT wrote:Pto, that didn't work, I got him, and I gots picz.

LOL I know, was funny anyway LOL
[/quote]

Proof #1, and proof #2 of your fail, is that you said that "lazyTOO" would be correct.

I rest my case. Cool

by **Dray The Fingerless** Mon May 02, 2011 6:01 pm

Aragorn wrote:*looks through the thread* I don't see where he said he edited the post and if he would have, it would say underneath it "edited 1 times by Ptolemy" It's not there Me:2 You:0

SouLCasT wrote:
Aragorn wrote:* Hierarchy

*Al Qaeda

Good Lord, people. L2usegoogleforspellcheckifyou'retoolazytogetadictionary

Gotcha'. Grammar nazy beaten.

You were beaten. Right there.

by **SouLCasT** Mon May 02, 2011 6:42 pm

Not really, that's how I always spelled it. I know it's nazi.

by **soran** Mon May 02, 2011 6:52 pm

Aardvark wrote:The "war" isn't popular so they bring up a guy that had no connection to the 9-11 incident but was blamed anyway to rally public support.

he had connections because he helped plan the whole thing. he even admitted it on national TV.

by **Aardvark** Mon May 02, 2011 6:56 pm

No he claimed it, difference. I've come across quite a few documents that prove he had little or no involvement in 9-11. Not saying he's a good guy, just saying America needed someone to blame and he volunteered.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Mon May 02, 2011 6:56 pm

i love that metaphor. so.....silly.

by **soran** Mon May 02, 2011 7:07 pm

theres so many ridiculous conspiracies about the 9/11 attack. EVEN if the government was that big of a douche bag to take down those two towers and kill its own citizens, why? why would the gov't want to take down those towers so badly that they devised a plan of bombs and synchronized explosions and kill its own citizens?

by **Dray The Fingerless** Mon May 02, 2011 7:11 pm

soran wrote:theres so many ridiculous conspiracies about the 9/11 attack. EVEN if the government was that big of a douche bag to take down those two towers and kill its own citizens, why? why would the gov't want to take down those towers so badly that they devised a plan of bombs and synchronized explosions and kill its own citizens?

one of the oldest and simplest tricks in political scheming. fuck, even KOTOR references it. Take that you rule over people. your enemies weak and remote. Under these circunstances, your rule becomes complacent. You learn of impending attack. Do you stop it, or let it happen? The correct answer is, you let it happen. As people divert their attention outwards, your rule strengthens again.

by **Aardvark** Mon May 02, 2011 7:12 pm

No I subscribe to "let it happen" theory in which case they know exactly what will happen and let it so we can go to war for more oil.

by **dandaman7** Mon May 02, 2011 7:23 pm

Dray The Fingerless wrote:Took them long enough....i bet the dude who was on the drone didnt even know it was him, prolly just thought it was another lil terrorist.

Lol it was team six, took days of planning

Aardvark wrote:No he claimed it, difference. I've come across quite a few documents that prove he had little or no involvement in 9-11. Not saying he's a good guy, just saying America needed someone to blame and he volunteered.

K, bin Laden 'claimed' it, Khalik Sheikh Mohammed claimed Osama did it, and majority of Guantanamo bay prisoners of the war admit it, what more do you need? Video footage of him telling people the instructions on how to blow up the the World Trade center?
Do you have proof we went to war solely for oil? That we actually knew and 'let it happen'? It's assumptions and these assumptions can be just as correct as bin Laden behind 9/11. Only difference is bin Laden admitted it, Bush or his ppl haven't

by **Aardvark** Mon May 02, 2011 7:29 pm

dandaman7 wrote:Do you have proof we went to war solely for oil? That we actually knew and 'let it happen'?

Countless reports by ordinary citizens of suspicious pilots and security too lax at the airports, lack of any competent response by the government after the first attack, and "finding" the man that did it BEFORE he announced it to me equal proof, but that's just me.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Mon May 02, 2011 7:36 pm

also, complete and utter failure of Air Force on that day. When a plane goes astray, you FUCKING RESPOND TO IT. there are godamn DRILLS for this event, countless times every year. to have a complete FAILURE of communication for so long and not responding in anyway on that day? In the USA of all places? did everyone take the blue pill that day?

by **dandaman7** Mon May 02, 2011 8:02 pm

All these people say they thought things were suspicious AFTER it happened, I don't really know how to explain it, but do you think they would have said things were suspicious if the attack didn't happen? The government didn't know how to respond because it just got attacked, you can't make a quick decision. Pearl Harbor was only officially recognized by the government a day after it, that planned too? If it was planned, wouldn't the government have something planned to say already?
bin Laden was blamed because he had been threatening to attack the trade center again, and when it actually happens, who would you suspect? Hamas?

Btw, do you think Obama had bin Laden killed so that he can reelected too?
Dray, if it was a real conspiracy, it wouldn't be a failure on part of the Air Force. What could they have done really, shoot the plane they suspect may be hijacked before it hits the building?
Bin Laden dead? - Page 2 Conspiracy_tot1

Bin Laden dead? - Page 2 Conspiracy_tot1

Bin Laden dead? - Page 2 Conspiracy_tot2

Bin Laden dead? - Page 2 Conspiracy_tot3

by **Aardvark** Mon May 02, 2011 8:10 pm

Yes actually Pearl Harbor was let happen, Eisenhower admitted he knew about the attack and did nothing. And actually, the airport those planes launched out of? My mother was a travelling nurse at the time, went through the airport 5-6 times, went through security once, didn't even check the luggage. She reported it, everyone she knew who went through the airport reported it.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Mon May 02, 2011 8:15 pm

uh, actually, yes, it a failure on the Air Force. there are drilled events for plane hijacks all the time. wtf do you think NORAD is for? and it wasnt a sudden event, those planes went blank and silent for quite sometime, and they deviated their routes. they have CONSTANT, milisecond update on plane positions. if one goes astray, you contact that plane, immediatly. if they dont respond, you sound the alarm. this isnt godamn 1940s, and this isnt on the godamn pacific. there is technology today. responses to events like these take less than 10 minutes to go fully operational.

so youre telling me that agencies TRAINED to respond to EXACTLY THIS TYPE OF EVENT regularly, completely forgot, every single one of those govt employees working on them, to enact what they were trained to do?

im not even talking about the bomb planting conspiracies, and the ties to bin laden and al qaeda(wich, arent really a secret, the CIA created them)

by **haize** Mon May 02, 2011 8:21 pm

Aardvark wrote:No I subscribe to "let it happen" theory in which case they know exactly what will happen and let it so we can go to war for more oil.

if we are going to war over said oil why haven't we taken any? we could have taken every drop of oil out of iraq after we basically conquered it? If all we wanted was oil we would have had it enough said.

by **Aardvark** Mon May 02, 2011 8:34 pm

OPEC.

by **dandaman7** Mon May 02, 2011 8:36 pm

Dray The Fingerless wrote:uh, actually, yes, it a failure on the Air Force. there are drilled events for plane hijacks all the time. wtf do you think NORAD is for? and it wasnt a sudden event, those planes went blank and silent for quite sometime, and they deviated their routes. they have CONSTANT, milisecond update on plane positions. if one goes astray, you contact that plane, immediatly. if they dont respond, you sound the alarm. this isnt godamn 1940s, and this isnt on the godamn pacific. there is technology today. responses to events like these take less than 10 minutes to go fully operational.

so youre telling me that agencies TRAINED to respond to EXACTLY THIS TYPE OF EVENT regularly, completely forgot, every single one of those govt employees working on them, to enact what they were trained to do?

im not even talking about the bomb planting conspiracies, and the ties to bin laden and al qaeda(wich, arent really a secret, the CIA created them)

It's not a failure if they planned it is what I said, please reread, you seem to be making the claim they planned it, it's not failing if they are doing what's according to plan. Especially considering most conspiracy theorists claim that Air Force people shot down flight 93.
It wasn't all sudden, but when they knew it was hijacked, what could they do? Ask them to please not run into a building? I have no idea what you are trying to say in the second paragraph, but in response to 3rd, how exactly do you plant a bomb a building with 50,000 and no one notices.
Kami, pearl harbor likely wasn't a conspiracy. Why would they even risk losing their entire pacific fleet to wage war on Japan? The government strictly warned the military not to give any excuse to have someone attack us. FDR did not want any war at all and looking at a history book can help recognize the fact. Now, it could have been a conspiracy, but see there's a lack of evidence for it. People like have grand theories to make sense of grand events.
We receive 1-4% oil from Iraq. And pay full price for it. Foreign oil we receive comes mostly from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq.

by **Red-X** Mon May 02, 2011 8:36 pm

albions wrote:I dont belive he was the real 1 in charge. Imo he was the guy to focus attention on.

by **Aardvark** Mon May 02, 2011 8:46 pm

Without the U.S. the Axis powers would have likely conquered much more then they did, and by the time an actual assault would have been launched on the U.S. there would not have been enough allies to turn the tide of the war, at the same time the U.S. people were unwilling to get involved in a war that had no immediate effect on them. By letting a catastrophe like Pearl Harbor occur you got the American people in favor of war. The question you should be asking is why so many of our ships were at Pearl Harbor, it didn't make sense unless they were planning an attack which we can already rule out as being unfavorable, or to be bait. To the Japanese such a large target with no back-up was begging to be exploited.

Now let me ask you Dan, which is more pathetic in your opinion, the possibility that a small group of terrorist could hijack multiple vehicles and hit multiple high profile targets in the same day all a minimum of 10 minutes apart with absolutely no resistance from U.S. forces, or that the bunch of greedy politicians saw an opportunity to secure their power and funding and took it at the expense of the American people?

by **haize** Mon May 02, 2011 8:51 pm

your looking to deep into it all aard don't go all conspiracy theory on me here....

by Sponsored content