[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 12:21)

There's no drugs or alcohol there.

ah.

this explains a lot....

[Irviding]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 15:29)

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 12:21) There's no drugs or alcohol there. ah. this explains a lot....

Seconded.

[Jeeebuuus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 20:32)

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 15:29) QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 12:21) There's no drugs or alcohol there. ah. this explains a lot.... Seconded.

Thirded. It means he has a different lifestyle than us.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 20:13)

It means he has a different lifestyle than us.

[Jeeebuuus]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, May 4 2012, 03:54)

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 20:13) It means he has a different lifestyle than us.

Hmhm. That's me.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 23:39)

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, May 4 2012, 03:54) QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Thursday, May 3 2012, 20:13) It means he has a different lifestyle than us. Hmhm. That's me.

You're my dad?

[finn4life]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, May 4 2012, 05:44)

SNip snip

Good to have someone here disproving crackpot theories.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (finn4life @ Friday, May 4 2012, 08:16)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, May 4 2012, 05:44) SNip snip Good to have someone here disproving crackpot theories.

I'm all for people proposing radical theories. Hell, I don't mind if people draw interesting questions from conspiracy theories. But basing an entire argument- a complex argument too- on something so contrived, put forward by a known conspiracy theorist with no formal education in the subject- and then using it as an apparently factual example is just a great way of destroying your own credibility.

If he's said "this person believes the US funded and trained al-Qaeda", I could have understood; I still would have argued that the information was dubious, but making the claim "the US funded and trained AQ and I have the evidence to prove it" based such utter tripe is misleading at best, and harmful at worst.

[lil weasel]

There are always gullible people. P. T. Barnum said it, I don’t need to repeat it.
Theory and Belief are fine as long as they are approved by the people in charge. Otherwise, wild ideas are just for the crazy, dirty, uneducated common volks.
So as long as the Governments Line is toed everything will be fine.
People who don’t, and dare to speak out about the insane ideas are bordering or even may be crossing into the land of seditious speech.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Friday, May 4 2012, 10:03)

There are always gullible people. P. T. Barnum said it, I don’t need to repeat it. Theory and Belief are fine as long as they are approved by the people in charge. Otherwise, wild ideas are just for the crazy, dirty, uneducated common volks. So as long as the Governments Line is toed everything will be fine. People who don’t, and dare to speak out about the insane ideas are bordering or even may be crossing into the land of seditious speech.

Granted, but I'm not sure whether that's applicable in this case. You seem to be suggesting that I'm the gullible one here but with what evidence? I mean, you made a claim that I've disproven to a reasonable extent, and yet you appear to be accusing me of some kind of politically driven groupthink mentality and that's quite offensive in a way. Exactly what justification do you have for such a view, given that all I've done is critique your argument on the basis of the quality of your information source?

I think you should take a long hard look at your own views and statements before guardedly accusing others of bias. I'm sure you are more than happy to represent your views as rational, sceptical and world-weary ideas, a product of maturity and life experience, but they often read as rampant paranoia or baseless distrust of authority and trying to claim that the views of others are just naivete or misguided when using absolute nonsense shouted by conspiracy theorists as a legitimate defense of these views really does damage the credibility of whatever argument your trying to make.

But hey, what do I know, I'm just a subject matter expert with no tangible link to the authority you so openly decry.

[Pagelzilla]

Not sure if you guys saw this yet.

Wired details declassified documents

Recently declassified documents from the SEAL raid show how out-of-control and worried OBL was about al-Qaida's image. They point out in the article that, ironically, OBL was just as concerned about protecting the lives of innocent muslims as the US is. He emphasized that their main focus should always be killing Americans whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Some interesting points if you don't feel like reading the whole article:
-Drone attacks scare the hell out of al-Qaida operatives
-Iran and OBL never worked together. In fact, al-Qaida had issues with Iran.
-OBL frequently watched American news channels to see what was being reported. The most interesting part of this to me is that he recognized the biased news channels and focused on ones that weren't as outrageous. Here's a quote from wired:

QUOTE

Bin Laden wasn’t just a terrorist. He was a narcissist. Obsessed with his image, he dyed his grey beard black before filming propaganda videos. And however much he hated America, he and his deputies were positively obsessed how they came across in American media. “We should also look for an American channel that can be close to being unbiased, such as CBS, or other channel that has political motives that make it interested in broadcasting the point of view of al- Mujahidin,” bin Laden wrote shortly before his death. “Then, we can send to the channel the material that we want the Americans to see. You can ask brother Azzam about the channel that you should send the tape to and let me know your opinion and his.” “Brother Azzam” is bin Laden’s California-bred (and ex-metalhead) media deputy, Adam Gadahn. Gadahn tracked the press like he worked for Fishbowl DC. Fox News will “die in anger,” he predicted. CNN “seems to be in cooperation with the government more than the others.” And he fell out of love with MSNBC. “I used to think that MSNBC channel may be good and neutral a bit,” Gadahn observed, “but is has lately fired two of the most famous journalists — Keith Olberman [sic] and Octavia Nasser [sic] the Lebanese — because they released some statements that were open for argument.” Nasr was actually fired from CNN after seeming to praise Hezbollah. (“It seems she is a Shia,” Gadahn speculated.) Bin Laden’s U.S. media diet even got occasionally eggheaded. To refute the idea that the U.S. was on the side of the angels during the Arab Spring, bin Laden suggested reading “the RAND Center publications, especially the books ‘Civil and Democratic Islam,’ and ‘Building Moderate Muslim Networks,’” since the monographs “emphasize that the US’s interests are with secularists and reformists because they are the true allies.” All this media obsession was meant to protect al-Qaida’s brand. But the group’s own offshoots kept trashing it. A flunky wrote to bin Laden about the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq: “They said Abu Hamzah is much more bloodthirsty and more enthusiastic about [killing], is tyrannical in his dealings with others, and has no patience for anyone who disagrees with him, etc.” Much easier to attack Fox News than rein in bloodthirsty terrorists who thought they were only following in bin Laden’s footsteps.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Pagelzilla @ Friday, May 4 2012, 16:41)

-Iran and OBL never worked together. In fact, al-Qaida had issues with Iran.

This is likely to rile the conspiracy theorists. By "conspiracy theorists", I mean "those who think that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are one and the same".

[Irviding]

QUOTE

This is likely to rile the conspiracy theorists. By "conspiracy theorists", I mean "those who think that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are one and the same".

Conventional wisdom would put Saddam at the top of the pyramid, as we all know Iraq and its subsidiaries, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Mujaheddin were responsible for 9/11. I do believe, and this is pretty hard-hitting, that Saddam had his strings pulled by Nelson Mandela, who was angry about the 1992 LA riots seeing cops beat up black people. We must invade South Africa.

[PrivateFirstClass]

QUOTE (Pagelzilla @ Friday, May 4 2012, 16:41)

-Iran and OBL never worked together.  In fact, al-Qaida had issues with Iran.

agreed. iran is shia and al-qaeda is sunna, shia and sunna are in conflict long time ago.

QUOTE

y'know that Osama bin laden wasn't responsible For 9/11?

nope, bin laden and al-qaeda did not do 9/11, it was an israel, mossad & cia operation

btw, al-qaeda was created by CIA
Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda

This post has been edited by PrivateFirstClass on Saturday, May 5 2012, 21:05

[GTA_stu]

Oh god here we go again...

[Irviding]

QUOTE (PrivateFirstClass @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 16:01)

QUOTE (Pagelzilla @ Friday, May 4 2012, 16:41) -Iran and OBL never worked together.  In fact, al-Qaida had issues with Iran. agreed. iran is shia and al-qaeda is sunna, shia and sunna are in conflict long time ago. QUOTE y'know that Osama bin laden wasn't responsible For 9/11? nope, bin laden and al-qaeda did not do 9/11, it was an israel, mossad & cia operation btw, al-qaeda was created by CIA Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda

I disagree, refer to my by above post and disprove my logic.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (PrivateFirstClass @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 22:01)

nope, bin laden and al-qaeda did not do 9/11, it was an israel, mossad & cia operation

It sort of was al-Qaeda, though- and if you actually knew any history, you'd also know it wasn't the first time they'd tried to hit that very target. That's why there's absolutely no proof to suggest that Mossad or the CIA had any involvement, and quite literally f*ck-tonnes of it that proves quite definitively that Q did. The worst role that the US played in the attack was willful ignorance brought on by groupthink mentality and petty squabbling between domestic and foreign intelligence agencies. And, tell me, exactly how would the intelligence services of these countries pull of such a massive strategic coup without the (admittedly in the case of many European ones considerably "better") foreign intelligence agencies elsewhere from identifying what they did?

And, pressingly, exactly what would have been the strategic value for either Israel or the US in doing so? Until you can quantify this kind of statement with a rationale (let lone some actual evidence) it's just senseless dross.

QUOTE (PrivateFirstClass @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 22:01)

btw, al-qaeda was created by CIA Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda

The editor of that video is an absolute moron. Hillary Clinton is referring to the Taliban (and not entirely accurately either, the US funding of the Mujahideen didn't create the Taliban but it certainly helped their faction victor over more moderate forces in the ensuing civil war). She makes absolutely no reference to AQ in the entirety of that video. It's clear she's talking about funding the Mujahideen because of the references to the conflict with the Soviet Union. But, what both you and the numpty who posted that on YouTube also fail to understand is that al-Qaeda (or at least, the fledgling violent Takfiri group set up by OBL during the late 1970s) actually predates the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. So, unless Ronald Reagan possessed a time machine, he wouldn't have been able to "create" al-Qaeda as it had already been created before the events that Hillary Clinton references in that video.

I find the amount of mutual masturbation and arse-licking on the comments section highly amusing given the fact that not one single poster appears to have noticed this very fundamental flaw in the entire argument.

[GTA_stu]

I found this particular comment on that video pretty funny:

QUOTE

WAKE UP PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD ! THIS EVIL WANT TO DESTROY THE WHOLE WORLD ! THEY DO EVERYTHING FOR MONEY ! WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TO LATE ! AFTER SYRIA AND IRAN,THEY WILL CONTINUE THE WAR ! NEXT IS EGYPT,TURKEY,PAKISTAN, SAUDI-ARAB, GOLF STATES, WHOLE MIDLE EAST ,CENTRAL ASIA, AFRIKA, SOUTH AMERICA...

Why didn't the US invade the golf states? Because there was already a hole-in-one. Badum dum tsss. Thankyou, I'm here all night.

[sivispacem]

I do find it utterly bewildering that people who are so idiotic as to be unable to use punctuation or spell two-syllable words, seem to have such an impressive and deep knowledge of complex geopolitical conspiracies that are so vast and so well-disguised that only a select handful of people know of their existence. The same goes for our good friend PrivateFirstClass here. How is it you know that Mossad (who, lets remember, only have around 800 employees working on intelligence-related activity) somehow planned and perpetrated 9/11 (not quite sure how, as no-one has explained this to me yet), but don't know what a capital letter is?

I can only assume that the extended periodic leaves of absence you have from the forum are enforced by your nurse taking you away from the keyboard you've been furiously mashing, giving your your meds and sending you back to your padded cell with some crayons to play with instead.

[Irviding]

Nelson Mandella did 9/11