Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!

[Boogie Boy]

Nosos,

That's a beard there dude!

BB

 

[editor]

Anyway, my time on the internet cafe is running out now but this is the crux of the issue for me: which standard of precedent do you require?

I repeat: something vaguely related to the events of 9/11 with one or two striking similarities would be a start.

So what have you got?

 

[Signal 11]

There were no precedents for 9/11.

There aren't that many for the campaign of preemptive invasions which "may never end", planned by the neocons.

So their previous record = invade+bomb at will. No need for highly complex, highly risky, citizen-slaughtering plots.

So why did they consider an invasion of Afghanistan "almost unthinkable, absent a provocation such as 9/11"? Any ideas?

 

[editor]

So why did they consider an invasion of Afghanistan "almost unthinkable, absent a provocation such as 9/11"? Any ideas?

I'm in doubt whatsoever that the events of 9/11 were manipulated, twisted and fully exploited by Bush, but that's a long, looong way away from suggesting that the USG planned the entire thing, wouldn't you say?

 

[Signal 11]

I'm in doubt whatsoever that the events of 9/11 were manipulated, twisted and fully exploited by Bush, but that's a long, looong way away from suggesting that the USG planned the entire thing, wouldn't you say?

Yes, all I'm saying is that your claim that their plans could have gone ahead without something like 9/11 is incorrect, so there is a credible motive.

 

[editor]

Yes, all I'm saying is that your claim that their plans could have gone ahead without something like 9/11 is incorrect, so there is a credible motive.

So they mass murdered their own civilians and bombed their cities so that they could invade Afghanistan?!!!

 

[Signal 11]

FFS, did you even read the post you quoted, or the previous one?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I repeat: something vaguely related to the events of 9/11 with one or two striking similarities would be a start.

So what have you got?

why ask for proof of something that in the modern world you know does not exist?

what i find terrible is that you are happy to dismiss on set of ideas by suggesting that your set of ideas are superior. Can you cite one credible source for your justification that it wasn't seeing as neither the pros or the cons actually have anything other than superstition?

where are your media sources which say that the us administration are not capable of doing this?

if they could and did do it in Nicaragua, why not inside of the states too?

what about say the Waco affair, where they used flame throwing tanks, or is that made up tinfoilhatterness too? or is that just rouge agents? so therefore the administration isn't culpable?

is Blair not culpable because of the incorrect intelligence dossier, but your argument Blair had no need to go to war on fictitious grounds, not culpable of lying to Parliament or going to war (and getting UK soldiers killed as well as the murder of 1000's of Iraq's) because he wasn't to know...

i don't think the us administration did it but i think they may well have been aware of the possibility of the attacks.

It boils down for me if the misjudged the credibility of the attack or if they new it would further their aims.

BTW do you think that as a professional journalist, that you colleague Micheal Moore is also a tinfoil hatter for suggesting that bush knew is Fahrenheit 911 conspiracytastic, based on not one piece of credible substantiated evidence?

could you come out and say that publicly?

 

[editor]

BTW do you think that as a professional journalist, that you colleague Micheal Moore is also a tinfoil hatter for suggesting that bush knew is Fahrenheit 911 conspiracytastic, based on not one piece of credible substantiated evidence?

I'm sorry. Where has Michael Moore stated that 9/11 was carried out by the USG?

I must have missed that. And what Michael Moore thinks has got precious little to do with me. He's entitled to his opinion, just like me.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to clarify your comments about my supposed 'trolling' and to name these people who are in my "little gang".

I find the suggestion that I command a "little gang" who go around "wrecking" other bulletin boards at my behest deeply insulting, so I'd like you to back it this offensive accusation please.

I've already asked you several times.

And while you're at it, could you also explain what you meant when you said I had a "funny definition of unprovoked", please?

 

[editor]

where are your media sources which say that the us administration are not capable of doing this?

Silly boy. How can I possibly prove a negative?

But if you think that the USG was responsible for the mass murder of its own citizens, the destruction of its own cities and what would quite possibly be the greatest conspiracy in human history, kindly produce your evidence.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

But if you think that the USG was responsible for the mass murder of its own citizens, the destruction of its own cities and what would quite possibly be the greatest conspiracy in human history, kindly produce your evidence.

Surely the greatest conspiracy is that some guy on dialysis living in a cave in Afganistan, recruited 20 agents and arranged for them to get flight training in the US. These agents managed to strike 3 out of 4 targets, one the best defended building on the planet with armed with only a few knives and boxcutters.

Now that is a conspiracy and a half! And your evidence is....

 

[bigfish]

Surely the greatest conspiracy is that some guy on dialysis living in a cave in Afganistan, recruited 20 agents and arranged for them to get flight training in the US. These agents managed to strike 3 out of 4 targets, one the best defended building on the planet with armed with only a few knives and boxcutters.

Now that is a conspiracy and a half! And your evidence is....

Well, there's:

1. the video confession of a bloke with a fat face pretending to be bin Laden. The tape was apparantly discovered in house in Kandahar raided by American special forces.

2. Hire cars found at 2 of the airports containg obligatory Koran's and How to fly Jumbo Jets for Beginners training manuals.

3. A photograph of Mohammed Atta and one accomplice at Portland airport (not a targeted airport).

4. CCTV footage minus any time stamps showing four fussy blobs apparently undergoing security checks at Dulles airport who are said to be the hijackers even though one of those named is known to be still alive.

5. Atta's passport which survived a plane crash followed by a fireball.

What more evidence do you need than this Qwerty?

If you're looking for the kind that will stand up in a properly constituted court of law, then you've come to the wrong place I'm afraid. Here, makey-uppy evidence is all that required to convict.

 

[pbman]

Surely the greatest conspiracy is that some guy on dialysis living in a cave in Afganistan, ....

WE have home dialyis machines here in the us, no doubt bin laden could buy one. Ther pretty small and compact and easy to use.

So thats not a factor.

 

[editor]

Surely the greatest conspiracy is that some guy on dialysis living in a cave in Afganistan, recruited 20 agents and arranged for them to get flight training in the US. These agents managed to strike 3 out of 4 targets, one the best defended building on the planet with armed with only a few knives and boxcutters.

Oh dear. He wasn't 'some guy' living in a cave. He was a well educated multi millionaire.

And could you explain what you think is so significant about the fact that he was receiving dialysis treatment?

People using mobile dialysis equipment can live perfectly normal lives, so what is your point?

 

[editor]

2. Hire cars found at 2 of the airports containg obligatory Koran's and How to fly Jumbo Jets for Beginners training manuals.

Errr... what's so unusual or suspicious about that?

Haven't you ever 'genned up' on a subject on the way to a meeting, bigfish?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Silly boy. How can I possibly prove a negative?

But if you think that the USG was responsible for the mass murder of its own citizens, the destruction of its own cities and what would quite possibly be the greatest conspiracy in human history, kindly produce your evidence.

can you point out where i have said that i think the USG are responsible for murdering their own citizens other than Waco which of course is clearly not a god example for you... (you sure you're not dyslexic and having problems in reading responses or is it that your feeble attempt to argue from the ridiculous corner yo have carved out for yourself leaves you little choice but to selectively quote and go straight from the trolling FAQ whenever a question comes along you choose not to answer....)

BTW at nearly 30 now i think that unless you are some kinda of special human being who has lived for eons that i would classify in most peoples mind as a man, you patronising aside I'm not asking you to prove a negative I'm asking you to prove a positive.

 

[editor]

...or is it that your feeble attempt to argue from the ridiculous corner yo have carved out for yourself leaves you little choice but to selectively quote and go straight from the trolling FAQ whenever a question comes along you choose not to answer....)

I'm getting really fed up with your constant moronic accusations about 'trolling'. You clearly haven't a fucking clue what the word means and the suggestion that I'd troll my own boards just shows how ignorant you are.

Talking of 'choosing not to answer questions', here's one that you've been wriggling out of for some time. Will you kindly answer it now please.

Please clarify your comments about my supposed 'trolling' and please name these people who are in my "little gang".

I find the suggestion that I command a "little gang" who go around "wrecking" other bulletin boards at my behest deeply insulting, so I'd like you to back up this offensive accusation please. So who are they?

I've already asked you several times.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

are you threatening me?

 

[editor]

are you threatening me?

Are you a bit thick or something?

You've already asked me this same question yesterday and I've already answered you.

But seeing as your memory is clearly failing you (or you're doing your best to avoid actually answering the question), here's my reply once again:

GarfieldLeChat: are you threatening me?

editor: Actually, I'm simply asking you to clarify your own comments about 'trolling' and to name these people who are supposedly in my "little gang".

Now will you please answer my question and back up your defamatory allegations.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I'm sorry. Where has Michael Moore stated that 9/11 was carried out by the USG?

I must have missed that. And what Michael Moore thinks has got precious little to do with me. He's entitled to his opinion, just like me.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to clarify your comments about my supposed 'trolling' and to name these people who are in my "little gang".

I find the suggestion that I command a "little gang" who go around "wrecking" other bulletin boards at my behest deeply insulting, so I'd like you to back it this offensive accusation please.

I've already asked you several times.

And while you're at it, could you also explain what you meant when you said I had a "funny definition of unprovoked", please?

OK mike

i put it to you that you were fully informed at every step of the way to the nature and involvement of people and subject matter which was being put on dissensus by pm here, i put it to you that you have used this information to further the attacks then claiming that you 'knew' nothing about this and it had com eout of leftifield. I put it to you that further to this you said one thing in pm's and then turned around publicly and have conducted a systimatic campain against them to the point where you post up the url knowing that such action would cause people to have a look (in your own FAQ's you accept this possiblity by requesting that you do not link to hostle sites in an attempt to stur up board wars.) i put it to you that this action was totally p[rovoking a situation and was done out of cold hard malice rather than infact any regard for what was trying to be created dispite being full possestion of the facts you decided to make it into a personal attack by framing it in these terms. I put it to you that your coaching of it in these terms was in fact dishonest.

I put it to you that your constant baiting on these threads is an extentsion of that viewpoint of this being a personalise attack rather than is the case people discussing thing's. I put it to you that your insisant demands for proof when to quote your own words 'they are entitled to there opinion' does not inculde those on this thread. i put it to you that you repeated questions are poor debating tactic. I put it to you that urban is a communtiy based on a bulletin boards and is now bigger than one mans work (even if that one mans work started the intial imputus for the discussion boards) evidence for this can be seen in the possible expansion of the communtiy forums and also the ever increaseing bandwidth. I put it to you that the constant turning of these threads into some kind of personal attack on yourself rather than disccusion is provokeation to all memebers of the board who view this as a communtiy. i put it to you that you have outirght lied and not retracted about comments i have made, framed comments i have made in terms which amount to soundbiteism, and is such an abuse of power.

I also put it to you that rather than reply in any cosider way you will just threaten and possbily carry out a banning of me for responding.

if you do i would ask that you ban the account (and the countonezero one just so that fridge doesn't suggest i am multipul registering) that you don't ban tp as she is not involved (ie ip banning woudl fuck her account to).

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Are you a bit thick or something?

good one calling a dyslexic thick good one

You've already asked me this same question yesterday and I've already answered you.

annoying when people do that isn't it?

Now will you please answer my question and back up your defamatory allegations

it's not defamatory how can it be this is the INTERNET i believe you have called me a dimwit before for such comments....

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Hello GarfieldLeChat,

editor has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - the call for banning on this forum is disturbing - in the world politics/current affairs forum of urban75 forums.

This thread is located at: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=77074&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
It's not defamatory, dimwit.
***************


There may be other replies also, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

Yours,
urban75 forums team

..

 

[editor]

it's not defamatory how can it be this is the INTERNET i believe you have called me a dimwit before for such comments....

Claiming that I have an organised "little gang" who go around destroying other people's bulletin boards is indeed defamatory and the fact that the comments were published on the interrnet makes no difference whatsoever.

Try and learn the facts before making yourself look any more stupid.

http://www.urban75.com/Action/libel.html

 

[editor]

i put it to you that you were fully informed at every step of the way to the nature and involvement of people and subject matter which was being put on dissensus by pm here, i put it to you that you have used this information to further the attacks then claiming that you 'knew' nothing about this and it had com eout of leftifield.

<snipped: load of barely readable, ill-informed drivel>

Could you just name the people in my 'little gang' please?

You made the claim. Back it up please.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

<snipped: load of barely readable, ill-informed drivel>

Could you just name the people in my 'little gang' please?

You made the claim. Back it up please.

as you believe it's defamatory i would suggest you consult a solicitor and take further action...

as for the rest of your drivel i have answer this above if you cannot be arse to read but just repeat yourself then i can't be bothered to entertain you either. take it to court Micheal lets see how that would pan out...eh?

BTW it would pan out with you loosing as well you know...hence your inability to fully respond to anything ever put to you on these threads...incapable utterly incapable...

BTW why doesn't urban verify correct code wise on opera forcing it to reload all the image files each time it loads up a page... could that be amongst one of the issues with bandwidth that as the users move away from microshaft exploder the bandwidth goes up as the site doesn't verify correctly....

BTW expect you to answer with some sneery, if i need your help running a succesful website nonsense...

BTW where are all your yes men now?

BTW answer the post.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

<snipped: load of barely readable, ill-informed drivel>

ill informed really am i that ill informed about the pm' which i sent to you ?

how can that be Micheal?

please provide proof and stop wriggling

 

[editor]

BTW why doesn't urban verify correct code wise on opera forcing it to reload all the image files each time it loads up a page

Err, what's this got to do with this anything?!

Your feeble attempt to avoid naming names is truly pathetic!

BTW where are all your yes men now?

Who are they, then?

You tell me. Who's in my 'little gang'?

Names please, wriggler.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

just to back up a bit Micheal, on defamation for your own reference

fair comment stands in this case, care to test it out I'm sure you can contact your solicitor and stop with your barrack room layer act eh?

 

[editor]

ill informed really am i that ill informed about the pm' which i sent to you ?

how can that be Micheal?

please provide proof and stop wriggling

I've absolutely no idea what you're on about.

But let's get back to the topic under debate: what are the names of the people you allege are in my 'little gang' who go around destroying bulletin boards?

You made the claim. Back it up.

Oh, and if you're going to try and play the smart arse by addressing me by my real name at least spell the fucking thing right.

 

[editor]

just to back up a bit Micheal, on defamation for your own reference

I've no idea what you're on about and I have no idea why you think that reproducing a context-free comment from months ago proves anything.

I am absolutely correct in my assertion that you have posted up defamatory material, but seeing as I don't come from a privileged family like you, I have not the financial means - nor sufficient interest, frankly - to pursue the matter further.