World War III

[iconboy]

i dont know about u guys, but i have an open mind to a lot of things and just because you guys dont agree with this guy doesnt mean that A) hes crazy and you need to call him names (grow up), B) that his ideas, although out there ARE plausable and finally C) he has the right to say whatever he wants and he actually does bring up some good points.

not that i truely believe this 100%, but in the last 4 years Bush has attacked 2 countries and invaded them! gas prices have never been higher and a lot of the gas comes from oil which is guess where? you got it. and it can all be linked back to 9-11. Im not gunna say THIS happened, but its possible, all the pieces are there. and where is the Us going next? my guess iran, syria.

[Glassed Silver]

this is very theoretical, i wouldnt spread it as fact, but as theory.

i really cant stand bush, hes one of the biggest *** holes on earth BUT:

he is a human being and u shouldnt spread such heavy stuff about him without being able to proof it as long as u say its the truth.

-fm

interesting tho

not impossible if u ask me

[Andre]

Idiot...........WW3 was the cold war......which the USA WON...(there isn't a soviet union anymore!)  WW4 is the war on terror.

:alien:

586562631[/snapback]

Cold War wasn't near being an actual war, let alone WW3. By the time it ended, USSR still existed, therefor your moronic statement about USA winning the Cold War is invalid.

WW3 is either on the way or yet to come.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Well just to refute another claim Bush actually did win the election contrary to Fahrenheit 9/11's claim and Fox news did not win the election for Bush either.

Thing is the conspiracy would have to go much farther than the US if he was right. We all saw the tapes after 9/11 of Bin Laden talking about it, and while there have been a few people saying otherwise every country seems to back the US translation of the tapes, So for us to create this conspiracy it would basically mean every western nation on the earth is down with it as well, most countries supported us in Afghanistan because they all seemed to agree that Bin Laden was there, there was also the Israeli and other countries intelligence that claimed Al-Qaeda was up to something using planes pre-9/11 which has been used to make us look incompetent which we very well may have been, so this conspiracy would be giant. However once you factor in the reluctance of many of those same countries to back us in Iraq it makes the idea of them all following a vast US plot seem more far fetched, I mean after all if they knew that Al-Qaeda wasn't behind 9/11 than Afghanistan was even more unjust than Iraq I'd say.

Gas prices will always be nothing but higher it's the nature of using a product that is slowly becoming more in demand and rapidly, from a human standpoint, decline in easilly accessible fields factored in with the rediculouse idea of a speculative market coupled with a cartel. They'll be even higher in 2008 even if we got an enviropacifist president.

Clinton invaded 2 countries as well.

I don't think we'll really invade Iran or Syria, but Iran does give cause for concern alot more so than say *cough* Iraq *cough*. I mean they're actively working on a nuclear program and close thier parlaiment hearings with "Death to the US" at times so I'd say there may be a strong reason to attack them if they don't respond to diplomacy. But there's no need to jump to conclusions regarding Iran as there's still the possible outcome of diplomacy working or at least reaching a mutually beneficial understanding or something.

[iconboy]

this is very theoretical, i wouldnt spread it as fact, but as theory.

i really cant stand bush, hes one of the biggest *** holes on earth BUT:

he is a human being and u shouldnt spread such heavy stuff about him without being able to proof it as long as u say its the truth.

-fm

interesting tho

not impossible if u ask me

586562771[/snapback]

pimps, sweatshop owners, crooked social workers and unruly priests prey on the weak, poor and sick. they prey on defenseless children and old people. they rape and kill and have no remorse as long as the money comes in- the last time i checked they were all considered 'human'- so remember, even humans can do some horrible things. I dont think that there is a certain limit that has been reached of inhumanity just because someone is 'human'

Well just to refute another claim Bush actually did win the election contrary to Fahrenheit 9/11's claim and Fox news did not win the election for Bush either.

Thing is the conspiracy would have to go much farther than the US if he was right.  We all saw the tapes after 9/11 of Bin Laden talking about it, and while there have been a few people saying otherwise every country seems to back the US translation of the tapes,  So for us to create this conspiracy it would basically mean every western nation on the earth is down with it as well, most countries supported us in Afghanistan because they all seemed to agree that Bin Laden was there, there was also the Israeli and other countries intelligence that claimed Al-Qaeda was up to something using planes pre-9/11 which has been used to make us look incompetent which we very well may have been, so this conspiracy would be giant.  However once you factor in the reluctance of many of those same countries to back us in Iraq it makes the idea of them all following a vast US plot seem more far fetched, I mean after all if they knew that Al-Qaeda wasn't behind 9/11 than Afghanistan was even more unjust than Iraq I'd say.

Gas prices will always be nothing but higher it's the nature of using a product that is slowly becoming more in demand and rapidly, from a human standpoint, decline in easilly accessible fields factored in with the rediculouse idea of a speculative market coupled with a cartel.  They'll be even higher in 2008 even if we got an enviropacifist president.

Clinton invaded 2 countries as well.

I don't think we'll really invade Iran or Syria, but Iran does give cause for concern alot more so than say *cough* Iraq *cough*.  I mean they're actively working on a nuclear program and close thier parlaiment hearings with "Death to the US" at times so I'd say there may be a strong reason to attack them if they don't respond to diplomacy.  But there's no need to jump to conclusions regarding Iran as there's still the possible outcome of diplomacy working or at least reaching a mutually beneficial understanding or something.

586562800[/snapback]

please dont take me as antiamerican, because im canadian and i have nothing but respect and admiration for my neighbors to the south, but in the end i have to say that the US is the big kid on the block, they are the bully. They bully people using sanctions and import/export blocks to get what they want and its usually getting people to 'agree' with them. I think everyone is relunctant to agree, but noone has a choice because noone can take on the US.

Gas prices going up is reduculous, do not fool yourself for a second into thinking that the US needs anyone for gas, there is more than enough oil in the states waiting to be pumped and much more in reserves. We here in Canada also depend very little on the US and the middle east for oil, a lot of poeple dont know, but we got a ton - and what ****es me off is that disasters in the middle east and the us shouldnt affect our prices, but people use them as an axcuse to raise prices.

When did Clinton ever invade 2 countries? im raising a flag on BS for not clarifying :p and please dont tell me Bosnia is one of these place, because last time i and the rest of the world checked he was kinda stopping genocide there :p

Regardless of what Clinton did in his persoinal life, he was a great president and made many many positive changes compared to Bush.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

I never said you we're anti-american. Personally I'm of the firm belief that you can be pro-american yet be against several of it's current policies. Bush may say "either you're with us or against us" and there may be alot of people who feel the same way here but I don't. Further I appreciate Canada's efforts on the war on terror and you were there for us in Afghanistan which was Al-Qaeda's home base. I don't hold anything against Canada for Iraq because it wasn't Al-Qaeda related so I respect your countries stance on that. I also feel that if Canada truly thought we were threatened by Iraq that you would have backed us on it as well. So don't worry I don't hate you or nothing.

I do think gas prices are rediculouse, stupid global market. My problem with it is I hear alot about OPEC and true to an extent they do probably charge more but that's not really where alot of it comes from. On top of that you have the companies and this speculative market, and it's not Opec. Opec gets alot of hate, some of which is valid but even mroe hate should be thrown at our local companies who price gouge us. I really don't think Opec is the enemy here and I don't think Iraq's oil was a real factor for war. The high gas prices are because of crap here not overseas.

Well there was Boznia and Herzegovenia(forgive the spelling) and Yogoslavia which makes two. I honestly think the invasion of Afghanistan was just and had Clinton been in office post 9/11 think he would have done the same thing, so when people say Bush invaded 2 countries he did, but I don't think anyone should hold Afghanistan against him. There's only so much you can do if the government of a country is actively defending someone who is actively trying to kill your people. And I never said that either of Clintons two wars were any less valid either.

Edit: Only reason Clinton got in trouble for Monica was because she wasn't hot. We have a high standard for our Presidents, we expect them to have affairs with models and actresses not freaking normal looking interns. :D

[family guy]

With the ability to land on the moon and explore our solar system

586562555[/snapback]

I'm surprised you even believe that, if you don't believe the 9/11 attacks were real. But seriously, come on. You aren't the first to say this, and I'm not the last to say you're crazy. Sure, I don't really think the war on terror is doing much, and I don't support it, but I have no doubts that the 9/11 attacks were real. You aren't really proving anything either, you're stating what many have said for a long time, and I would hardly consider comparing Bush to Hitler a good comparison.

[iconboy]

the only reason that gas is at the price that it is is GREED.

GREED GREED GREED.

Oil companies see a situation and see they can up the price and make that an excuse. Seriously and we fall for it cause we are too dependent on our cars,. this is not gunna change :(

[Mando]

Well there was Boznia and Herzegovenia(forgive the spelling) and Yogoslavia which makes two.

Erm when did USA actually invade these countrys as you state? (which would infact be an act of war according to the Geneva convetion.)

I recall seeing the UN pretending to go in and peacekeep (as long as the genocide happens outwith our eyesight then its ok and we can peacekeep).

Both NATO and the US should be ashamed of the attempt of the UN to stop Genocide in these balkan states, we failed miserably with our UN hats on and let thousands of muslim croats & serbs be exterminated. Our so called civilised western world turned a blind eye to the ethinic clensing going on in front of our noses.

I dont recall any "invasion" by uncle sam let alone USA fighting and actually winning the cold war as you put it. NATO held the former soviet union in check for 50 years mate not uncle sam on their own. The reason the USSR lost out in the cold war era was nothing to do with America winning but was actually due to the USSR not being able to afford to keep up in arms supremecy with the USA over the last 50 years.

Christ if it had been left to uncle sam on their own what hope would have been left, you have a communist state on your doorstep which you cannot sort out or even have civilised dialogue with.

The original post is purely fiction although i wouldnt put it past my country and uncle sam to stoop to such low tactics.

Everything since sept 11th has been a bit iffy i dont trust either nation one bit.

our UK bombings are another example, if you look at the horror and destruction by similar bomb tatics in say the middle east or back in the days of IRA terrorism, the tube bombings left nowhere near the destruction that the same type of device used in the past had left.

I have to admit something smells of bull5hit i just cant place my finger on it.

I was always taught what goes around comes around and in my opinion both US of A and the UK are reaping what they had sewn years back.

Once upon a time the Taliban were seen as a good friendly force in Afghanistan that USA supported & armed (for a price)also Bin laden and Al-Queda were trained, financed & supplied by US of A when he was your "freedom" fighter in Afghanistan fighting the soviets until you turned your back on him & his cause. Now he is a terrorist and an enemy of the state, isnt it amazing how things change eh.

What gets me is USA & UK seem to think they can sort Afghanistan what the soviets could not sort in 20years occupation.....dont make me laugh :woot:

While i do not condone what they have done i can sort of see why they would turn on a nation that financed them, armed & supported them to fight communism and then at the most vital part of their campaign leave them stranded and alone on the battlefield of afghanistan.

We have had to endure for the last 50 years the abilty of the IRA to "fundraise" in the USA to fund their terrorism campaign on the UK mainland, then as soon as a couple of planes hit an american city there is a global mission to wipe out terrorism.....you wernt saying that when you allowed murderers to raise money to buy weapons to kill British soldiers and civilians.

Dont take it personally i know the US population arnt to blame its our politicians and our capitalistic money obsessed western lifestyle.

Both my country and USAs biggest export is one thing...weapons & arnaments to supply the world, wouldnt you be against friends or associates that acted the same in your life? Help you with something being your friend then at the most critical point in the operation they turn and leave you in the lurch to fend for yourself.

We need to learn to see ourselves from other nations perspectives.

I am ashamed to call myself British i see myself as a Scotsman over all this.

Edited September 23, 2005 by Mando

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Well the moniker of "peacekeeping" is an empty word and nothing more than a public friendly title for invasion and war in my opinion. They were UN actions however so was Afghanistan so why is Bush getting all the weight of that blame? Now I admit that our actual performance in all these recent conflicts from the first gulf war to present have been pathetic, so while I agree with thier cause I really hate the way we finish after removing the "bad guy" and let everything degenerate into near anarchy and proclaim "great job" and hand out medals like candy.

Cold war point wasn't me, although I think the US played a huge role in it, more than any other single country outside the USSR, however I agree that we shouldn't get full credit as still without the rest of NATO it would have been for naught.

As for blaiming us directly for the Taliban or Bin Laden, I think that's rather simplistic. Nobody knows what someone will do in the future and I don't see how stopping the giving of free money, weapons and training is an offence that demands revenge. Of course after the Soviets left we could have continued giving them everything and we'd be blamed for propping them up even higher or further meddling with a free nation so it was a damned if we do damned if we don't type thing.

We should have been harder on the IRA I agree. We have a very hypocritical outlook on terrorism when it's affecting another country.

[Mando]

As for blaiming us directly for the Taliban or Bin Laden, I think that's rather simplistic.  Nobody knows what someone will do in the future and I don't see how stopping the giving of free money, weapons and training is an offence that demands revenge.  Of course after the Soviets left we could have continued giving them everything and we'd be blamed for propping them up even higher or further meddling with a free nation so it was a damned if we do damned if we don't type thing.

We should have been harder on the IRA I agree.  We have a very hypocritical outlook on terrorism when it's affecting another country.

586567536[/snapback]

I wouldnt say I blame USA for the Taliban its not like the US Govt created them or Osama, they just trained and helped a freedom fighter. My home nation the UK are as much to blame for a lot of the troubles having the same attitude. Leaving your financed allies in the lurch and at the disposal of the oppressive regime that was in power at the time was wrong and what turned them not actually giving "assistance".

Osama was the lapdog of USA when it suited the US Govt, petting training and feeding the dog then disgarding it when it no longer served a purpose to the cause. I suspect this was the reason. Is it any wonder hes turned round and bit the hand that used to feed him wouldnt you have if you had been in the same situation?

It seems to be the way of our western civilisation these days mate.

I just find it sticks in my throat the way both USA and now the UK feel that they are the worlds police force, while force feeding every nation with our ideals & way of life wether they want it or not. Prime example Macdonalds.

Is it any wonder that people with different ideals oppose anything relating to either of our nations?

As a song by primal scream states "one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist" how true!!!

[Mando]

As for blaiming us directly for the Taliban or Bin Laden, I think that's rather simplistic.  Nobody knows what someone will do in the future and I don't see how stopping the giving of free money, weapons and training is an offence that demands revenge.  Of course after the Soviets left we could have continued giving them everything and we'd be blamed for propping them up even higher or further meddling with a free nation so it was a damned if we do damned if we don't type thing.

We should have been harder on the IRA I agree.  We have a very hypocritical outlook on terrorism when it's affecting another country.

586567536[/snapback]

I wouldnt say I blame USA for the Taliban its not like the US Govt created them or Osama, they just trained and helped a freedom fighter. My home nation the UK are as much to blame for a lot of the troubles having the same attitude. Leaving your financed allies in the lurch and at the disposal of the oppressive regime that was in power at the time was wrong and what turned them not actually giving "assistance".

Osama was the lapdog of USA when it suited the US Govt, petting training and feeding the dog then disgarding it when it no longer served a purpose to the cause. I suspect this was the reason. Is it any wonder hes turned round and bit the hand that used to feed him wouldnt you have if you had been in the same situation?

It seems to be the way of our western civilisation these days mate.

I just find it sticks in my throat the way both USA and now the UK feel that they are the worlds police force, while force feeding every nation with our ideals & way of life wether they want it or not. Prime example Macdonalds.

Is it any wonder that people with different ideals oppose anything relating to either of our nations?

As a song by primal scream states "one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist" how true!!!

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

I suspect this was the reason. Is it any wonder hes turned round and bit the hand that used to feed him wouldnt you have if you had been in the same situation?

586568090[/snapback]

No I wouldn't have, but the thing is, I don't expect anything. If I was fighting for something and someone gave me something I'd be happy with what I got not expect more and more.

It's like the homeless people I sometimes give money to, I run into a lot of the same ones over the course of a month and sometimes I give them some money sometimes not, but I wouldn't expect them to knife me over it one day because I didn't have free beer money for 'em.

I'm sorry but I can't support your line of thinking aid is just that aid. It's not permanent, it's not a pact till death, it's not required, and it damn well shouldn't be expected. To say that us stopping the flow of aid makes us responsible for them turning on us and somehow actually validates thier position is absurd. No-one was required to give them anything and they should have been happy with what they got. The goal was to defeat the Soviets and drive them out and they did that, what more did they want? Free big-macs for life, trust funds for college, what?

[Mando]

if it was aid then yer i agree with you. But what the Taliban received and Osama received (from Mr Bush Snr) wasnt financial aid it was weapons and military training mate.

That isnt the same as what you would class as "aid" as such. Id class medicine, water, food & money as traditional aid.

The usa paid for clandestine geurilla warfare training with US/UK weapons and military "advisers" thats the difference between what they received and say what Niger just received for example. Both the taliban and Osama were military in origin therefore what they received cannot be classed as humanitarian aid. This is exactly the same as what we did with Saddam we sold them weapons etc thats why we knew he had WMD we just had to look up the invoice for the conventional and biological weapons that WE (USA & UK) sold to him.

thats the difference in all this

The Taliban didnt drive the soviets from Afghanistan the Soviets withdrew due to the cost of pursuing the occupation and the financial burden it loaded onto the soviet economy.

thanks for breaking from the norm and actually debating this topic instead of letting it become a flame fest or point scoring excercise. it makes a refreshing change ;)

Peace bro

:D

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

haha no problem. :)

I still think it's just plain aid. The desire was to get the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, we offered help in that area to the mujahadeen and that's what they got. Before the Soviet occupation we could have cared less about Afghanistan and they could have cared less about us, the common theme between us was a desire to get the USSR out of Afghanistan. They wanted them out because it was thier country and we wanted them out because we just didn't want the commies to keep steamrolling through countries and expanding thier influence. While I personally believe we never gave 2 ****s about Afghanistan and did this only for selfish reasons I still think it was a valid operation and the right thing to do even if our motives were wrong.

What I can't see is how us helping them accomplish what they themselves wanted somehow indebted us to them. Now had we forced them to attack the USSR and then left them I'd agree with you, it'd be a simple matter of us using them and then leaving them high and dry, A recent example of this type of common BS American tactic would be in Iraq during the first gulf war where Bush Sr. was telling them we were coming and for them to rise against Saddam Hussein, only to stop before getting rid of Saddam and watching from afar as everyone who believed us was killed. We OWE those people, they died because of us in a cause we started, we set them in motion and let them die and I'm not at all suprised that many hate us because of that, but Afganistan was nothing like that. The USSR invaded them and they wanted them out, we offered them assitance in thier goals and they accomplished it. As far as I see it that's mission accomplished good for them. I don't see why they would think they still should be getting stuff from us when they got what they were wanting.

[Pilsbury]

Well the moniker of "peacekeeping" is an empty word and nothing more than a public friendly title for invasion and war in my opinion.  They were UN actions however so was Afghanistan so why is Bush getting all the weight of that blame?

586567536[/snapback]

Because the UN didn't sanction action in Afghanistan or Iraq. The leaders of what was formerly Yugoslavia asked the UN to help. That's the difference between an act of war and a peacekeeping mission.

We should have been harder on the IRA I agree.  We have a very hypocritical outlook on terrorism when it's affecting another country.

586567536[/snapback]

So, the US should have invaded Ireland as well? The only reason they didn't was that there was nothing worth the hassle as we don't have that much oil.

Maybe if the US hadn't supplied money and arms to Iraq and the Taliban to counter Russian supplied Iran and the Afghan government there wouldn't have been a need to declare war on them when they got ideas that they didn't really need the US.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

We didn't need to invade Ireland, but we didn't need to allow them to get money from us. That's the same crap we put countries on watch lists for, is raising money in charities and the like to go to terrorist organizations.

Milosovic definately did not ask the UN to come into the country.

We didn't invade anyone because they didn't "need" us, we invaded Afghanistan because they refused to hand over the man who had just had 2,000 Americans killed. Invading Afghanistan was a necessity, what wasn't necessary is the lackluster follow through, and stopping after we've got one city under control. It's pathetic what we consider victory, iut'd have been like say during WW2 if we occupied and stabalized Berlin, left the rest of Germany in chaos and left saying "mission accomplished." I am not happy with our performance in Afghanistan, but I really can't follow you disagreeing with the reasoning for it.

Iraq, who knows the real reason. This isn't really worth debating in that regard because I can't tell you why and neither can you. All we hear is OIL and your side has just as much proof saying it was about oil as the other side has saying it was about WoMD, which is to say neither side really has any true facts backing up thier claims.

[Pilsbury]

Milosovic definately did not ask the UN to come into the country.

586568412[/snapback]

The Bosnian / Herzegovinan government asked the UN for help from the Serbian attacks in 1992.

Milosevic is a Serb. So, you are correct in saying he didn't ask them.

[2xSilverKnight]

if you think WTC has been demolished because of the fire you should look at this preview video of Loose Change documentary by Dylan Avery. Even on the FDNY tape they are reporting explosions and only small pocket of fires that they will knock them out easily. There's even more than 10 footages from mainstream medias that are reporting explosions going off and the building was no doubt demolished on purpose but they are not in this preview video, but in the complete documentary.

Link

Edited September 23, 2005 by 2xSilverKnight

[ASIO]

if you think WTC has been demolished because of the fire you should look at this preview video of Loose Change documentary by Dylan Avery. Even on the FDNY tape they are reporting explosions and only small pocket of fires that they will knock them out easily. There's even more than 10 footages from mainstream medias that are reporting explosions going off and the building was no doubt demolished on purpose but they are not in this preview video, but in the complete documentary.

Link

586569501[/snapback]

An excellent contribution in the War For Truth.

Afghanistan and Iraq were not the first countries George W Bush attacked... the first attack was on the United States of America on 11 September 2001.

Some people can't handle the truth!

[Matt T]

Interesting theory. I doubt any of it's true, but everyone saying that ASIO is an idiot needs to wake up. I'm not saying that it's true or that I believe it happened, but it's possible. How can we know whether or not this is true? We don't. It's as simple as that.

[Liandros]

i do believe that there was terrorism behind 9/11 but i also belive that america might have been behind it in some way but im not sure how. i mean bush just sat on his ass in a school reading a book with a bunch of kids while his country was being attacked. either he knew it was going to happen or he just can not think on his feet and has to run to his dad or his master cheney everytime he needs to make a decision.

also while hurricane katrina was destroying new orleans, bush was palying guitar and eating cake with senator john mccain, but that is a different story.

Edited September 25, 2005 by Liandros

[ASIO]

George W Bush is lying to the American people. He is a wolf in wolves clothing. He has lied about WMDs just as he is still lying about 911.

The American media are little more than a propaganda tool just as they are in Russia. With smoke and mirrors the people are being deceived.

George W Bush is following the agenda of a new world order.

9/11 Synthetic Terror - made in USA

Webster Tarpley's new book

pages 309-310

"1. The government's assertion that the so-called hijackers operated without being detected by official surveillance is UNTENABLE, and evidence is strong that the alleged hijackers acted in coordination with a faction within the government itself. The hijackers were therefore in all probability expendable double-agents or, more bluntly, patsies.

2. The government's assertion that the four supposedly hijacked airliners were taken over and piloted by the four accused hijackers identified by the FBI, IS AT OR BEYOND THE LIMITS OF PHYSICAL AND TECHNICAL REALITY. The planes were in all probability guided to their targets by some form of remote access or remote control.

3. The government's assertion that the failures of air defense were caused by the fog of war is LAME AND ABSURD. Air defense was in all probability sabotaged by moles operating inside the governmet.

4. The government's assertion that a Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Some other type of flying object, possibly a cruise missile, must therefore be considered.

5. The government's assertion that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed as a result of the impact of aircraft and the subsequent fire is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The fall of the towers cannot be explained without the hypothesis of controlled demolition of some form, possibly including unconventional methods employing new physical principles.

6. The government's assertion that World Trade Center 7 collapsed at 5:20pm EDT on September 11 purely as a result of fire is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The collapse of WTC 7 is coherent with controlled demolition of the conventional type.

7. The government's assertion that United Flight 93 crashed because of actions by the hijackers or because of a struggle in the cockpit is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, given the pattern in which the wreckage was distributed. All evidence points towards the hypothesis that United 93 was shot own by US military aircraft.

8. The government's refusal to investigate insider trading in American Airlines and United Airlines put options, the wholesale seizure and destruction of evidence, the systematic intimidation of witnesses by the FBI, and a series of other incidents point unmistakably to an attempted COVER UP on the part of the entire US government and establishment."

credit:"GMA"

[remix17]

Interesting theory. I doubt any of it's true, but everyone saying that ASIO is an idiot needs to wake up. I'm not saying that it's true or that I believe it happened, but it's possible. How can we know whether or not this is true? We don't. It's as simple as that.

586572412[/snapback]

Do you actually believe that U.S. government would bomb its own country ? If you tell me that there are aliens living among people, I would believe that more. But this is not conspiracy theory, this is mental insanity.

[ASIO]

Where are you getting your information I would like to look into it myself... Thanks :ninja:

586577305[/snapback]

It is good that you want to look into this yourself. That way, whatever your conclusion is, would have been reached through careful examination of the facts. You are also open to new facts.

The challenge as I see it is that people cannot get their minds around that George W Bush is covering up the truth. He is too stupid to have orchastrated this himself, for he is little more than a pastie for the real powers that control the USA.

The US media are NOT independent. That is the first thing everyone must accept. "Freedom of the Press" only truely exists in places like here at Neowin where people can express ideas with the full weight of evidence.

The US agencies will not shut Neowin down, too many witnesses, but they may try other tactics such as disinformation, attacking the messenger and not the message, and trying to influence the owners that discussing this topic isn't in the "National Interest".

I am of the view that the truth, IS in the National Interest.

I don't want to influence your research into this one way or the other but I will say that you can google most of this. One note however, don't expect to be up to speed in a day or week or even a month.

It is a shock to realize what is really happening, as the poster above me said "f you tell me that there are aliens living among people, I would believe that more."

Do your best Sherlock Holmes - whatever the conclusion, no matter how improbable, if the facts point to the conclusion, it must be right.

We may "believe" that 2+2 has to equal 3 because George W Bush, the Media and everyone says it does. To realize that 2+2 equals 4 means to think for oursleves.

In time, people will learn the truth. Unfortunately in time, THE POWERS would have won and then not care anymore, an example, WMD.

WMD were the reason for invading/liberating Iraq. They weren't found so why are the forces still there? To say the Iraqis cannot rule themselves is another lie. They had rulers well before the US even existed.

That is the danager. The longer THE POWERS can hold out, the stronger they get.

To quote the X-files, "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE."

Google it!