source 1: ok...all you have proven by this is that some military officials somewhat thought about inficting american casualties. we could have guessed that. source 2: back to credentials. on the home page of the free market news, they say they are a small news company. all they do is ride the coattails of larger news companies. sho me something from a nationally syndicated news company man, iv said this too many times. source 3: mmkay....so you are telling me that it is fact simply because it is a non fiction book? also, another very ambiguous source, b/c noone can veryify it unless they buy it and read it..... source 4: and this prooves what? source 5: already been addressed. source 6: this "guardian" news source doesnt even give its own sources! that plus the fact that ill bet almost noone has heard of em = not credible. this hasnt been verified by any1 else, so dont go callin it a massacre when its a massacre acusation. source 7: yes they may have killed 3800 afgahnies, that were living with the taliban! welcome to war, its called colateral damage. they taliban took hold of towns, letting noone leave. then when the US comes in and roots em out, there is no way they can do it without civilian casualties. that type of event has been documented throughout the begining of the war, dont debate it, it happened. source 8: first of all, after actually reading the article: the taliban members were in a TALIBAN town, not under our control. they were airlifted out by PAKISTANIS, not us. also, you said yourself that MSNBC was owned by viacom, who is paid by the government. if they are controlled by the government, how can you cite them? iv caught you weaving your smokescreen again. from the time i began pointing out your lack of evidence, thats all you have given us. you seem to be lacking in the reasoning department here. REASONING + EVIDENCE = PROOF. now please, answer my questions directly. what is your real motive here? why do you persue this with so much gusto while avoiding the vast majority of my rebuttals? what do you hope to gain by spreading public dissent? and the one thing you are missing in this entire plot: what is the government doing all this for? you have spouted your 'sources'. now tell us whats really going on here.
I think he is trying to make you all wake up from the lucid dreams you are living in, and see the government for what is it really all about. Your speaking of 3800 human beings as if they were spare parts... Iam sure you would be more than delighted if you were an Afghani and had someone you loved killed by the US army, and just settle for that he/she was a civilian casualty. Asshole!
@Iron Bonney: thats just what happens. There is no stopping it. He wasn't being an asshole by telling the truth. He never said he didn't care about the people dieing, he was just explaining what war is.
1. My real motive is not to change people to become anti-american, or just overall government hating, anarchist loving people. But instead, my motive is just to inform those as to there is a bigger picture outside what someone tells you, if it be your child, your parent, your neighbor, or the people you work for. 2. I have told you everything I have to offer, the rest are recordings of CNN etc... which are extremely hard to crop etc... If you give me some time, I would gladly share them with you. 3. What I hope to gain by spreading public "awareness" (better word) is just to have people the ability to stop what they are doing, and ask why would someone do this, why would someone do that. 4. Now, I was going to place all as to what the Government would do this for, in a part three. But I guess you want the reason's behind my plots first. So, let's talk about why our Government would "be" behind such an attack. What do they have to gain? It is known that the worlds best income is oil. What does the middle east have? You guessed it oil. But more importantly than oil, what is oil without a currency? So, they wanted money overall. So, who gained money from this? Of course Larry A. Silverstein, wanted 7.2 Billion dollars from his insurance company. Who else would gain money? There were large desposits of credit money inside the world trade center. Also stated, that there were large i mean LARGE desposits of GOLD. Gold is a very heavy element, it would not of pulverized with the rest of the materials within the trade centers. Where oh where did this money go? No body seems to be asking the question of that. Can you say Bank Robbery? So, was that all they got from the attacks? No. What about the Patriot Act which is thousands of pages long, issued in October, just 1 month and 1 day later, it is signed. I wonder if this could have been written BEFORE 911? It basically strips our constitution down to the shell. It allows the police to enter your home, take your posessions, and arrest you without a warrant. Futher, it allows trials without juries. The administration defines this is only for terrorists. So, what is a terrorist? Terrorist: (noun) One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. Terrosimnoun) The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. So... could it be possible that anyone who goes to war with anyone is considered a terrorist? Yes. That means, if you get in a fist fight with someone about Bush being the best person in the world, then he can call you a terrorist and you can be held in jail for unlimited amount of time. The Office of Homeland security is right out of Adolf Hitler's manuel (if you read it, if not go ahead and read it. I'm not here to do more baby reading for you.) It's enthusiastic leader, is who? Mr. Tom Ridge, who seems intent on exercising his almost unlimited power. Please read this quote from our president. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." Source "Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. Existing law was written in the year of rotary telephones. This new law that I signed today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including emails, the Internet, and cell phones." Source As to the first quote, i think it's pretty obvious to find the meaning. If not, then i feel very dissapointed. The second quote, well if they can allow surveillance of all communications used by "terrorists", then they can do it against anyone who even sends an email to their buddy saying "I can't believe bush even said that, he should be thrown out" What are they going to do? They will try to find a single thing that you do wrong, and either arrest you as to conspiring, or some other illegal activity you preformed. Remember Osama Bin Laden? For months after months, he was all you ever saw on television. But once we enter Afghanistan, he suddenly dissapeared... How is that possible? We have NSA, CIA, FBI, funding which is atleast $40 billion a year, and when local news broadcasters could find him, they could not. Remember how the FBI said they had no prior information as to the 9/11 attacks, but within DAYS, they had name by name reports and countries and even PICTURES of the supposed hijackers, who as you all know are still living. Opium production has increased by 900% since we invade Afghanistan. Iraq is no a ecololistic wasteland, due to depleted uranium. There were no weapons there at ALL. So, as Dorothy says "We're not in Kansas anymore"
ah finnaly, the truth comes out. in the end, your conspiracy is really irrelivant. outside of your hole theory, i more or less completly agree with you. the government has seized FAR too much power. do i believe they did this by a 60+ year long conspiracy? no. i find that laughable. but after the recent acts of terrorism, the government has taken leaps and bounds outside of its power. in the begining i hoped bush, as a good republican, would stop this. i was wrong. i distrust the guy more and more by the day - but i do not come up with wild theories that state he is channeling the spirit of hitler. do i want security? heck yes. do i want freedom? yes, a hell of a lot more than i want security. ( im more one for slowing immigration and more inspections when entering the country, not wire taps and random raids ) the government has gone beyond its boundaries, but i completely dissagree with this oil conspiracy. the most valuble thing out there rite now is plutonium. if the US goverment wanted money, they would sell plutonium to india. or they would just TAP THE BLEEDIN MASSIVE OIL DEPOSITS IN ALASKA! ( not flaming at all, just want to tell all those people in power up on the Hill to stick it to the hippies and mine the bloody oil ) i think your hole point could have been better stated ( not to mention i would have agreed with you a heck of a lot faster ) if you would have just come out and said the goverment was seizing too much power. this conspiracy of yours is pretty much a joke; stick to the things that can actually be DEBATED, not just flamed.
Bush is not the first President to order agents to tap into phone lines -- it has been done several times by past presidents. The footage of Osama Bin Laden was not filmed by 'local news crews,' they were filmed by the terrorists. I don't really understand what you are saying here-- how could the supposed hijackers be still alive? They flew a plane into a building...maybe you are thinking of the terrorists that have been linked to the Al Qaeada Orginization who helped direct the attacks?
Well, they checked who was on the plane and then checked their backgrounds and anyone who was suspicious could have been connected to the hijackings. It really wouldn't be that difficult, I mean the culprits are obviously someone on the plane, and there are extensive records of people on the plane, photo identification, etc.
WOW I just read all of this and I'm absolutely speechless. Bravo for sharing this with us. Thats all I can say as of now I'm still at a loss for words I'm afraid.
This is so intresting based on the video I saw last week on this it says the same stuff I like it I have a completely different view on the situation now thanks a lot.
