Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Rapid Response Media Alert: Targeting Iran – The BBC Propaganda Begins

Red Jezza said:
No I did NOT; Johnny, please stop lying, and please stop misrepresenting me. I VERY carefully avoided offering any opinion on whether they WANTED to give up OBL, and merely pointed out, in the relevant posts, that you entirely misrepresented their STATED positon, and that there was at least a good chance, due to the practical exigencies of the situation, that they were telling the truth.
accept it - you got it wrong.
Click to expand...


24-01-2005, 01:15 AM
Red Jezza
Meejah Grass Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,638

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Canuck2
OBL was in Afghanistan at the time of 911. Remember how the taliban refused to give him up?


wrong!
they said they COULDN'T get him out - the terrain was too inhospitable, and his men too well-armed. Instead, thdey sent himm a formal request to 'leave their land', as sanctified and approved by formal Islamic procedure, and the customs of Afghanistan. VERY different from 'refusing to give him up', which was your precise phrase.
Johnny, do try and get your facts right.

..................................................................................................

What you're doing is purporting to get inside the heads of the taliban and tell us why they did or didn't do, certain things.

That's what you accused me of doing, and I just pointed out that you were guilty of the same thing.

And you were!
 
nino_savatte said:
No but you are quite prepared to make nasty comments to someone else about me. You are really still at high school aren't you mears?

If you have something to say to me, then say it to me not to someone else. You only succeed in proving how truly ignorant you are and what little knowledge you have of the world (amply demonstrated in your posts).
Click to expand...


Can I start shouting 'bundle bundle bundle' yet?
 
Pickman's model said:
*ignoring off-topic personal abuse*

when was the last time i worked? define work.

when was i last part of a union? now. and just then.

barring some unforeseen occurrence, i consider this correspondence closed.
Click to expand...

aw fuck nae man, as my good buddies north of the border used to say. That row 'tween you and ed was getting really interesting...

bundle bundle
 
pk said:
A glass of Murfatlar with a meal can hardly be described as "a few pre-lunch snifters" can it, Picky?

You fucking pedantic wankstain.

And it wasn't on expenses this time. I bought lunch for my assistant too.

Like I said - come back when you know what you're talking about, and don't be calling me a liar or you might find yourself lying - on the fucking floor ya cunt.
Click to expand...

I'm not even going to shout bundle.....
 
phildwyer said:
Given the frequency with which posters on these boards seems to threaten to bash each other up, have you ever considered staging, say, a monthly event in which those who have fallen out settle their differences like gentlemen: in the ring, with gloves, a referee and so on? I'd certainly pay to see such an event, and I'm sure many others would too. You could even open a book on it.
Click to expand...

my money's on PK, great use of industrial language
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Let's just say, there's a division of opinion in Canada.

Main Street doesn't speak for canada.
Click to expand...

Hey JC you've made me laugh with your last two posts, makes a difference from making me frown...
Hey it's important that we keep Canada together right....I'll accept I don't speak for Canada....but hey neither do you...
Can I get you anything at Tim Hortons?
 
Main Street said:
Hey JC you've made me laugh with your last two posts, makes a difference from making me frown...
Hey it's important that we keep Canada together right....I'll accept I don't speak for Canada....but hey neither do you...
Can I get you anything at Tim Hortons?
Click to expand...
I just speak for me.

Sure, a broccoli and cheese soup.

And a medium double double.
 
What's wrong with having lunch on expenses anyway?

Or having a taxi account on expenses?

Or a hotel bill on expenses?

If all these things were available to me - why the fuck shouldn't I take them?

It's not as if I don't earn them

Or am I breaking some kind of "rule" of socialist conduct?

Have you stopped to think perhaps I'm "stealing back some of my surplus value" ?

Either way - I work hard, and certain armchair anarchists do not - why should I mind if they bleat "unfair!" every now and then?

I'm loving it more than they ever will, and will continue to do so for a long time to come, all being well.

:cool:
 
If all these things were available to me - why the fuck shouldn't I take them?

I certainly would mate.

'Use the system or the system will use you' as my dear old freeloading Dad always tells me :)
 
pk said:
What's wrong with having lunch on expenses anyway?

Or having a taxi account on expenses?

Or a hotel bill on expenses?

If all these things were available to me - why the fuck shouldn't I take them?

It's not as if I don't earn them

Or am I breaking some kind of "rule" of socialist conduct?

Have you stopped to think perhaps I'm "stealing back some of my surplus value" ?

Either way - I work hard, and certain armchair anarchists do not - why should I mind if they bleat "unfair!" every now and then?

I'm loving it more than they ever will, and will continue to do so for a long time to come, all being well.

:cool:
Click to expand...
I once worked in the world of advertising, lived on expenses, rent paid, petrol paid, drinks at the poshest club on tab, all food paid for, clothing paid for, trips to the hair dressers. It was when I asked the question why am I so lucky when others are not that my life changed. Now I am free. I dont worry about me!
 
I am lucky because I have earned the right to have a bit of luck.

And I do my bit where appropriate.

But you'll know yourself - corporate hospitality comes at no cost to anyone - the salmon and champagne will simply be tipped in a skip if you don't eat it, figuratively speaking.

Nothing more foolish than a working class hero turning down a decent hot meal.

Naming no names, like...
 
Raisin D'etre said:
It was when I asked the question why am I so lucky when others are not that my life changed. Now I am free. I dont worry about me!
Click to expand...

I tried being free for years.

I just ended up getting tapped by a different set of bastards.

;)
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
24-01-2005, 01:15 AM
Red Jezza
Meejah Grass Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,638

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Canuck2
OBL was in Afghanistan at the time of 911. Remember how the taliban refused to give him up?


wrong!
they said they COULDN'T get him out - the terrain was too inhospitable, and his men too well-armed. Instead, thdey sent himm a formal request to 'leave their land', as sanctified and approved by formal Islamic procedure, and the customs of Afghanistan. VERY different from 'refusing to give him up', which was your precise phrase.
Johnny, do try and get your facts right.

..................................................................................................

What you're doing is purporting to get inside the heads of the taliban and tell us why they did or didn't do, certain things.

That's what you accused me of doing, and I just pointed out that you were guilty of the same thing.

And you were!
Click to expand...
you are lying again, and misrepresenting my words - very poor show, but entirely true to form. I NEVER said what the Taliban truly wanted or desired; I NEVER claimed to know this; I merely pointed out their OFFICIAL statements; as reproduced on al-jazz, the Beeb, CBS, etc.
Stop lying, Johnny. That or reproduce where I claim to be privy to the innermost intellectual workings of Mullah Omar. Or stop claiming an apple is an orange. :rolleyes:
 
nino_savatte said:
You miss the point o pointy headed one: not only does the programme make clear that AQ was a fiction, it also makes the point that OBL is not the head of an international hydra of terrorists. I always suspected this to be the case and the programme confirmed my suspicions. Now you can take that any way you want: the fact remains that you continue to believe in a fantasy that would not look out of place in a James Bond film.
Click to expand...

What it actually made clear - and what you're having difficulty in explaining to JC2 - was that Al-Q as an organisational group was the contruction of a paid CIA informant, and that the loose, unnamed group of jihadis that had drifted back to Afghanistan after the failures of the Islamisc revolutions and disbanding of Islamic Jihad itself, congregated around OBLs money in order to plan 9-11.

AT THIS POINT they didn't call themselves Al-Q, only the USG and other media sources did. They only started calling themselves Al-Q after 9-11 when they realised the name had a form of 'brand equity' of terror.

I'm not surprised JC2 called you what he did - you've misrepresented what the programme said completley by saying 'Al-Q doesn't exist' and it does look like you swallowed a line.

Of course you didn't and given the progs contributors (CIA and various other spooks, use of USG documents etc.) I'd say it has more than a ring of credibilty...but not if you go round saying things like 'Al-Q doesn't exist'. That isn't what the programme argued.
 
kyser_soze said:
What it actually made clear - and what you're having difficulty in explaining to JC2 - was that Al-Q as an organisational group was the contruction of a paid CIA informant, and that the loose, unnamed group of jihadis that had drifted back to Afghanistan after the failures of the Islamisc revolutions and disbanding of Islamic Jihad itself, congregated around OBLs money in order to plan 9-11.

AT THIS POINT they didn't call themselves Al-Q, only the USG and other media sources did. They only started calling themselves Al-Q after 9-11 when they realised the name had a form of 'brand equity' of terror.

I'm not surprised JC2 called you what he did - you've misrepresented what the programme said completley by saying 'Al-Q doesn't exist' and it does look like you swallowed a line.

Of course you didn't and given the progs contributors (CIA and various other spooks, use of USG documents etc.) I'd say it has more than a ring of credibilty...but not if you go round saying things like 'Al-Q doesn't exist'. That isn't what the programme argued.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking if AQ are constructed then it stands to reason that their exstence as a cohesive and credible terror network is, itself, bogus. In other words they do not exist. I haven't misrepresented anything.

I do not think AQ exist and I stand by what I said,

Is that alright for yez?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jazzz
  • Locked
9/11 media happenings
131 132 133 134 135
Replies
4K
Views
128K
editor
editor
taffboy gwyrdd
BBC "Conspiracy Files" on 911 was clearly biased
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
editor
editor
Jazzz
BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!
22 23 24 25 26
Replies
750
Views
28K
editor
editor
M
who is responsible for the London attacks?
47 48 49 50 51
Replies
2K
Views
39K
editor
editor
Jazzz
Claim of responsibility 'contains errors'
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
189
Views
8K
Dilzybhoy
D
Back
Top Bottom