Views

Discussion in '9/11' started by Jango, Jun 29, 2012.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already explained to you that I can't do that in the context of a forum dedicated to 9/11. Those subjects have nothing to do with 9/11.

    If you want to talk about how YOU arrived to a conclusion about a motive behind 9/11 then I assume you feel you need to answer post #1. By all means, go ahead. I predicted that it would be a very introspective study. Perhaps I'm incorrect.
     
  2. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I never said we didn't. In fact, I believe I illustrated such in my previous post.

    And for that, I thank you. But your cynicism makes me wonder . . . were you passed over for a promotion? . . . disciplined "unfairly" in your eyes?

    I never said you didn't.

    Agreed

    Fair enough. I think we share more common ground than you realize.

    From what sources, may I ask?
     
  3. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And I have a hypothesis that you have been sucked in by the "all US military action is evil and unjustified" crowd and their false flag theories because it sits well with your wish to believe that the US was behind 9/11.

    All of which helps you justify your anger at the government.
     
  4. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Perhaps if false flags didn't ever occur, maybe people would naturally be a bit more trustful. Perhaps if we hadn't invaded a country under false and deceitful pretenses, people could be more trustful.

    All of that SHOULD cause anger in any sane American.
     
  5. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're the LAST person to be talking about sanity. Sanity means following the evidence, not ignoring the evidence to blatantly lie and pretend opinion is greater than evidence. Sanity means believing what is real, not what you want to be real and know not to be real. Sanity means not pretending 9/11 was a flase flag because there have been false flags in the past. That is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) copout. I know it. You know it. All you are able to do is respond with sarcasm, not truth. Again, I know it. You know it. Now everyone else knows it.
     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps if legitimate actions didn't ever occur, maybe people would naturally think every action was a false action. Perhaps if there was no legitimate reason to invade a country, people would think that every invasion occurred due to a false pretense.

    As it stands, sane Americans realize that there are legitimate reasons to have and use the military.
     
  7. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "sane Americans realize that there are legitimate reasons to have and use the military."
    There are yes. But how often are the government taglines behind the use of force 'false'? Furthermore, generic terms like "vital interests" are used so frequently that it appears the entire globe is the US' sandbox to play in. At the end of the day, I wonder if our leaders even care about the lives that are shattered by our military machine. Imagine the "collateral damages" since 1898. Does anyone care?
     
  8. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Insanity means believing bouncing engines, disappearing planes, buried planes, an a magic failed Pilot, and trying to debate shill in an "official" dance forum, like these shills have created here. A sane person would realize the strings are all pulled by a collective team effort, and that honest discussion in here, is to be intentionally distorted, misleading and ridiculed by the shills. See you all in an honest forum...
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    like the one who bans a person with 'no reason given'?

    You HAVE been served,and what you are is perfectly clear now...
     
  10. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Insanity is claiming known falsehoods despite all the evidence to the contrary. Claiming known falsehoods as true is also a strong indicator of dishonesty, poor upbringing, and bad character.

    You've been shown the falsehoods in your claims. You can't refute the truth, so you blame everyone who has shown your lies as lies and attack them by calling them shills.

    Do you think ANYONE is actually buying the (*)(*)(*)(*) you're peddling?
     
  11. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It appears your participation in that echo chamber you call home hasn't removed that victim chip off your shoulder.
     
  12. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Which importance is that? The false-flag crowbar you were trying to use on the history of the 20th century? I do know a thing or two about history, and it's much much more nuanced than seem to want it to be. That's not my fault.
     
  13. Phil

    Phil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you. I've been thinking about the answers I gave and it occurred to me that my opinions of the wars in my lifetime are heavily influenced on the personal impact on my family and my hopes for the future. Those from the more remote past I can evaluate more objectively, but also in light of what followed.
    I'm tempted to start a new thread in another section of the forum asking people to define precisely under what circumstances the US should act to remove a head of state we strongly dislike. Should I, and which section would be best?
     
  14. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think so, yes.

    And the Warfare section would suffice.
     
  15. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's not necessarily a false-flag crowbar though, is it? Have you pondered at the two links I provided in post #1? The word 'interests' is used a lot. And do you recall Smedley Butler? What do you know about the thousands of foreign military bases? The true purposes they serve. As if they've changed from Smedley's day. Guys like me, we just followed orders and what we're ordered to do. We're just GI Joes, replaceable units. And the people back at home have no idea what's going on or are being told one of the generic press secretary's responses. "It was a vital interest of the US," they say, when in reality it was a private business owned by some senator or lumber or fruit baron that someone's 18 year old -PFC risked *his* life to save so some so-and-so rich person can have their business in a foreign country but still get US military protection.
     
  16. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Schweikart, Allen, Weiner, Coll, Zinn, Lowen, Kinzer, Mearsheimer, Walt, Scott, Chomsky, Ambrose, Brinkly.
     
  17. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from now.
     
  18. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    See what I mean Phil? If you're looking? This is what this place is all about. Misdirection, insult, and most importantly, NEVER discuss specifics. It's a futlie effort here so this is why I switched to your forum. Thanks boys.
     
  19. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It really would be refreshing if you didn't whine so much when you post here

    Also,seems to me you chucked 'discussing specifics' when you started whining about 'shills'
     
  20. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That was some generic hyperbole Jango that does very little to address any real evidence you think you have. I see your list of sources in the other post, but wonder if you've actually gleaned real information from them.

    Take Steve Coll for instance (one of my personal favorites on the recent history surrounding Afghanistan), if you really read his books on the subject (I'm including the one on the Bin Laden family as well) you would understand how bureacratic creep was part and parcel of US foreign policy in the region, rather than some overriding masterplan. There were many players involved each with their own agendas that were often counter to US interests. US involvement in said region changed from admin to admin, as did the focus of the CIA. Business interests have always been part and parcel of US foreign policy, but, if you recall, I posted something or another concerning the Roman Republic, I wonder why?

    Also, I'm surprised you didn't list John Perkins in your list of sources. He is also very fond of hyperbole with very little, if any, specifics to back his claims. At the end of the day, it just comes across as so much hand wringing.
     
  21. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    See what I mean, See what I mean?!!! You are so (*)(*)(*)(*) annoying and such a waste of time.

    Jesus dude, when do you ever attempt to discuss specifics beyond being a whiny B? All you do is moan and complain.

    I'm so done with your nonsense.
     
  22. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A hand-wringing is needed. Americans need to be systematically taught history in a different manner. The other half of the problem is government transparency. I have no doubt that you've read your share of US history, so what is the disconnect here? What's keeping your fist unballed?
     
  23. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hand wringing=not honestly looking at the facts. It illicits as equal a biased response as would one who believes everything the US does is "right".

    I specifically mentioned Coll's book (because you said you read it), and it's a very unbiased accounting of that 22 year period. It doesn't try and hide the mistakes the US made, but it also clearly points out agendas other governments had that were counter to US interests. Some of those other governments hands are very, very dirty, yet I only hear about the US from hand wringers like yourself.

    The US doesn't run the world, not matter how bad it wishes it could.
     
  24. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can certainly present a wide host of arguments for a bargin bin full of countries. My sin, my American patriotism, nationalism, and exceptionalism though, keeps me focused on my own homeland, and its problems - current, past, and future. There are a lot of them and many are repeated, which is why hand-wringing in the form of a jiu jitsu wrist takedown is needed to get the attention of the masses and powers-that-be. Well, in my opinion that is.
     
  25. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I, personally, find nationlism and it's twin brother, jingoism, mostly a waste of time.
     

Share This Page