9/11 what really happened?

[Razor]

Popular Mechanics is cool 8)

I agree.

PROPAGANDA, wooooohooooooo!!!!

No way Akbar agreed with me :shock:

With enough resources, by selectively picking theories and speculation you can prove anything, until people with opposing theories show their "evidence". That's what the Loose Change guys did. It works pretty well here in the UK where the GOV of the day calls it SPIN :wink:

I mean think about it, if the truth will set you free. Why is that OJ cat not doing 25 to life?

[akbarhussain]

It works pretty well here in the UK where the GOV of the day calls it SPIN :wink:

Correct again Mr. Razor. Spin - of which, New Labour are regarded to be the best in the world...... I always wondered what the US were getting out of the cosy relationship with Britain.

[Nick762]

As a guy I used to go to college with would say:

"It's the Illuminatus I tells ya!"

[Razor]

Correct again Mr. Razor.



Razor or Ms Razor is cool, calling me Mr is kinda transphobic.

My point though was not that governments are alone in putting spin on any particular event. The conspiracy theorists do it far more.

I don't think there is much of a cover up about 9/11. Americans are notorious blabber mouths. They'd have had to kill everybody involved to keep them quiet.

3 people can keep a secret as long as 2 of them are dead.

[SpankyHam]

yes the illuminati!

You just wait untill schwarzenegger is president.

[akbarhussain]

Razor or Ms Razor is cool, calling me Mr is kinda transphobic.

lol, sorry Razor.

[lynw]

yes the illuminati!

You just wait untill schwarzenegger is president.

Sorry to disappoint you but it wont happen. Unless they repeal the law that says naturalised Americans can not stand for the presidency.

:P

[SpankyHam]

:lol:

yes I know.

there are various websites claiming that it's illuminati's endgame - schwarzenegger being president of the USA. :lol:

The Constitution won’t allow a foreigner to become president?

Watch: The necessary changes will be made. Both parties have an interest in softening rules against foreign and international involvement in U.S. politics. Democrats don’t care about the U.S.

Constitution, but they’ll fight to the death defending United Nations documents.

This year, for the first time, international observers will be present in U.S. elections.

If the GOP believes Schwarzenegger can win the White House in 2008, it will move Heaven and earth to clear any and all obstacles.



:shock: Look they already made the T-shirts (http://www.cafepress.com/republicanred/490250) :lol:

[TimTucker]

A few points:

1. I believe that the Twin Towers had a design where the outside walls of the towers carried the load, rather than the more traditional skyscraper design with a load-bearing core and curtain walls.

2. Spiderman mentioned seeing people celebrating the attacks in "South America". I can only remember seeing that handful of idiots in the Occupied Territories.

I arrived in Ecuador about a fortnight after the attacks and the no-one seemed to be happy with the attack on the "gringos". Most seemed relieved that none of the relatives they had working in New York had been killed or injured in the attacks.

3. This is a great article from the Guardian's website today. It's about the attacks on the Tube last July, but is very interesting with regards to conspiracy theories and theorists:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1806794,00.html

A lot of what some people seem to think is fact is just blind conjecture, in my opinion. Just because loads of people repeat something on various websites doesn't make it more true.

[lynw]

:lol:

yes I know.

there are various websites claiming that it's illuminati's endgame - schwarzenegger being president of the USA. :lol:

The Constitution won’t allow a foreigner to become president?

Watch: The necessary changes will be made. Both parties have an interest in softening rules against foreign and international involvement in U.S. politics. Democrats don’t care about the U.S.

Constitution, but they’ll fight to the death defending United Nations documents.

This year, for the first time, international observers will be present in U.S. elections.

If the GOP believes Schwarzenegger can win the White House in 2008, it will move Heaven and earth to clear any and all obstacles.



:shock: Look they already made the T-shirts (http://www.cafepress.com/republicanred/490250) :lol:

:shock:

Something tells me this subject will be back :wink: :P :lol:

[akbarhussain]

A lot of what some people seem to think is fact is just blind conjecture, in my opinion. Just because loads of people repeat something on various websites doesn't make it more true.

I agree totally Tim - but it seems to work unfortunatley. If Bush/Rumsfeld and cronies manage to mention the word terrorist in the same sentence as Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan enough, people just seem to go with it.

:wink:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

A lot of what some people seem to think is fact is just blind conjecture, in my opinion. Just because loads of people repeat something on various websites doesn't make it more true.

I agree totally Tim - but it seems to work unfortunatley. If Bush/Rumsfeld and cronies manage to mention the word terrorist in the same sentence as Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan enough, people just seem to go with it.

:wink:

I dont think they do though. Well, not in the UK anyway. No-one in Britain is stupid enough to believe that Iraq and Al-Qaida are connected in anymore deep and meaningful way than their names both containing the letter Q.

I also think that a government with the incompetance level we currently have wouldn't be able to pull off murdering 50+ people in such a manner, and get away with it.

[akbarhussain]

I dont think they do though. Well, not in the UK anyway. No-one in Britain is stupid enough to believe that Iraq and Al-Qaida are connected in anymore deep and meaningful way than their names both containing the letter Q.


We went to war with Eye-raq on the pretense of WMD though.

[keithd]

I dont think they do though. Well, not in the UK anyway. No-one in Britain is stupid enough to believe that Iraq and Al-Qaida are connected in anymore deep and meaningful way than their names both containing the letter Q.


We went to war with Eye-raq on the pretense of WMD though.

well, that was ONE of the reasons

[akbarhussain]

That I am aware of, WMD and the threat posed by such weapons to the soveiregnty of US/British soil was the sole reason given for going to war, before the war started.

Am I missing something here Keith?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

That I am aware of, WMD and the threat posed by such weapons to the soveiregnty of US/British soil was the sole reason given for going to war, before the war started.

Am I missing something here Keith?

Yes, so nothing to do with Al-Qaida terrorists, therefore staging an attack and blaming it on them makes no sense.

[lynw]

some further interesting reading :D

http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25346-2215212.html

particularly as one of the books has the perspective that its fundamentally a bureaucratic failure within the CIA. Intelligence was aware of a planned attack on US soil a month before. However, the how and when were unknown. If further intel was received, by that reading of the CIA operations, its exceptionally likely that it wasnt processed or passed on. :?

[akbarhussain]

some further interesting reading :D

http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25346-2215212.html

particularly as one of the books has the perspective that its fundamentally a bureaucratic failure within the CIA. Intelligence was aware of a planned attack on US soil a month before. However, the how and when were unknown. If further intel was received by that reading of the CIA its exceptionally likely that it wasnt processed or passed on.

Interesting reading. TBH, that would really make more sense thatn the whole thing being planned/executed internally. Kinda like they knew it was gonna happen but did nothing about it.

[akbarhussain]

That I am aware of, WMD and the threat posed by such weapons to the soveiregnty of US/British soil was the sole reason given for going to war, before the war started.

Am I missing something here Keith?

Yes, so nothing to do with Al-Qaida terrorists, therefore staging an attack and blaming it on them makes no sense.

lol, you'd think so wouldn't you. Because since 9/11, our governments have not even tried to justify their actions of the back of the attacks have they.

Nope, they never tried it with Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or even Iran (ok, so they're only making energy.... but imagine if they were to sell the waste to Al Qaeda to make a dirty bomb).


Yep, just makes no sense at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

[lynw]

Interesting reading. TBH, that would really make more sense thatn the whole thing being planned/executed internally. Kinda like they knew it was gonna happen but did nothing about it.

Which is why I think the government are resisting an inquiry to July 7th. I suspect we were in the same boat - we knew we were a target, it appears we were told about the bombers but a **** up in the intelligence service didnt treat it as seriously as it should have been. :?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

That I am aware of, WMD and the threat posed by such weapons to the soveiregnty of US/British soil was the sole reason given for going to war, before the war started.

Am I missing something here Keith?

Yes, so nothing to do with Al-Qaida terrorists, therefore staging an attack and blaming it on them makes no sense.

lol, you'd think so wouldn't you. Because since 9/11, our governments have not even tried to justify their actions of the back of the attacks have they.

Nope, they never tried it with Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or even Iran (ok, so they're only making energy.... but imagine if they were to sell the waste to Al Qaeda to make a dirty bomb).


Yep, just makes no sense at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

Yes but that's the US, I'm talking about here.

[akbarhussain]

Interesting reading. TBH, that would really make more sense thatn the whole thing being planned/executed internally. Kinda like they knew it was gonna happen but did nothing about it.

Which is why I think the government are resisting an inquiry to July 7th. I suspect we were in the same boat - we knew we were a target, it appears we were told about the bombers but a c*ck up in the intelligence service didnt treat it as seriously as it should have been. :?

I agree....... we might not agree on wether it was a **** up, but hey, it'd be boring if we agreed on everything :wink:

[northwind]

Yes, so nothing to do with Al-Qaida terrorists, therefore staging an attack and blaming it on them makes no sense.

Ah, the rare valid point. If the plan was to go to war on a pretence anyway, why not either have a more convincing pretence, or a less damaging one.

[akbarhussain]

That I am aware of, WMD and the threat posed by such weapons to the soveiregnty of US/British soil was the sole reason given for going to war, before the war started.

Am I missing something here Keith?

Yes, so nothing to do with Al-Qaida terrorists, therefore staging an attack and blaming it on them makes no sense.

lol, you'd think so wouldn't you. Because since 9/11, our governments have not even tried to justify their actions of the back of the attacks have they.

Nope, they never tried it with Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or even Iran (ok, so they're only making energy.... but imagine if they were to sell the waste to Al Qaeda to make a dirty bomb).


Yep, just makes no sense at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

Yes but that's the US, I'm talking about here.


lol, ok. So you're talking about the effect of US propaganda after an attack on the US will have on us here in Britain. How silly of me for not realising.

Ok, apply the same rules to Afghanistan. Its all the same, from the same doctrine that has now been tried and tested more than once. Preventative war because of a terror threat will be used again, and I dont think it is too far away.

[akbarhussain]

Yes, so nothing to do with Al-Qaida terrorists, therefore staging an attack and blaming it on them makes no sense.

Ah, the rare valid point. If the plan was to go to war on a pretence anyway, why not either have a more convincing pretence, or a less damaging one.


WMD? Oops sorry, I didn't see that you said 'more convincing'.

Lol, who cares about damaging (isn't it called collateral damage) if the job gets done?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Yes but that's the US, I'm talking about here.


lol, ok. So you're talking about the effect of US propaganda after an attack on the US will have on us here in Britain. How silly of me for not realising.

No, you didn't read what I wrote properly.

A lot of what some people seem to think is fact is just blind conjecture, in my opinion. Just because loads of people repeat something on various websites doesn't make it more true.

I agree totally Tim - but it seems to work unfortunatley. If Bush/Rumsfeld and cronies manage to mention the word terrorist in the same sentence as Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan enough, people just seem to go with it.

:wink:

I dont think they do though. Well, not in the UK anyway. No-one in Britain is stupid enough to believe that Iraq and Al-Qaida are connected in anymore deep and meaningful way than their names both containing the letter Q.

You were talking about why the government would launch an attack on its own people, blame terrorists then form a tenuious link between the terrirists and a nation in order to justify an attack on that nation - and that when the government came up with this link it was taken as gospel.

I simply said that I found it unlikely that the UK government would do this, because no-one believes the link in the first place.

[akbarhussain]

No, you didn't read what I wrote properly.


Classic! Ok, please point out where you said this. And please point out where I said that 9/11 was comitted by the US government.

I simply said that I found it unlikely that the UK government would do this, because no-one believes the link in the first place.

The UK government would do what? Come on Jordan, up your game a little if you want to hang in there mate.

[Spiderman]

You see, this is why we shouldn't have these types of post on this forum....

It does nothing to add to the community, just drives a wedge between people. It's completely pointless on a bike forum and those that start the threads should know better.

.

This is why? What is why? that i got offended by something Lyn said and was mature enough to pm her and have a convo about it there so as not to bring bad feeling to the thread?

Just who are you to use my comments as a justification of your petty minded belief that these type of posts have no place here in IB?

I think that you sir are one of the biggest causes of bad feelings in threads that you dont like. If you didnt come in here to stir it up a bit with comments that you could have kept to yourself as they do nothing but antogonise, then there would be no bad feeling.

I merely informed Lyn that i found a comment offensive. And unlike some on this community i'm not one to throw my toys out the pram and ask for interesting debates to be locked cos i found something insulting.

I'm big enough and thick skinned enough to take what people have to say without thinking its a personal dig at me. I know its just sematecs sometimes.

My question to you is the same as Lyn's and the same as ive asked you before. WHY do you comment in topics you wish were not there? I have never posted in the MegaThread cos it holds no intrest to me. Its there for those who wanna partake of it, just like this thread is.

i'm just glad it was Razor who started this thread so you cant use your tired line of "its always X or Y or Z who post this stuff and nothing about bikes blah blah blah"
Razor watched a documentry (s)he found interesting and it clearly stimulated his thinking enough to want to see what others in this community think of it.

Your bike holds no intrest for me but you dont see me posting in things about your bike about it not being and SV and could we keep non SV related things to a minimum or offering / advising you to go find a forum more akin to your bike do you? No, cos i believe everyone has the right to post what they want as long as its inofensive to others in any personal way.

And if i find that subject matter uninteresting to me i go find something that i'd enjoy more.

For you to post the crap you post in threads you dont like is antagonistic at best and seriously childish at worst. I think we all know what you think of topics you dont like so do us all a favour and stop going on like a broken record. We got it the first 500 times you posted it elsewhere. :roll:

And as for your mates who say "well said" when they see you, well DUH!!! Thats why they are your mates. Cos they hold a similar view to you. I'm sure if you conducted a poll youd find a diffrent attitude.... presuming anyone bothered to respond to your thread apart from your mates that is.


....Just read that over and it sounded like i was knocking your mates, which i'm not. I'm simply saying we all hang with people who are similarly minded to us to a degree and of course share our views about certain things in life.
You wouldnt be mates with me for example cos we dont see eye to eye on things, so be it. But if you asked me the same question as you do you mates my answer would not be "well said" it would be the above.

And sometimes i think we need to hear what people who dont share our view on things have to say. I personaly find the other side of the fence's point of view interesting.

Anyway, lets move on and back to the thread.


Akbar... WTC7 was ordered to be pulled By Larry silverstein, yet it does not say that in the official 9/11 report. As you well know from the doc its because he had a very high insurance cover running on all the buildings.

And its just soooooooooo untidy to rebuild some of your buildings and not all of them, dahling ;)

[akbarhussain]

Anyway, lets move on and back to the thread.


Akbar... WTC7 was ordered to be pulled By Larry silverstein, yet it does not say that in the official 9/11 report. As you well know from the doc its because he had a very high insurance cover running on all the buildings.

And its just soooooooooo untidy to rebuild some of your buildings and not all of them, dahling ;)

I wasn't aware of the bit about WTC 7 Spidey, very interesting.

Pretty nice summary in the rest of your post too, I might add. :wink:

[Spiderman]

Anyway, lets move on and back to the thread.


Akbar... WTC7 was ordered to be pulled By Larry silverstein, yet it does not say that in the official 9/11 report. As you well know from the doc its because he had a very high insurance cover running on all the buildings.

And its just soooooooooo untidy to rebuild some of your buildings and not all of them, dahling ;)

I wasn't aware of the bit about WTC 7 Spidey, very interesting.

Pretty nice summary in the rest of your post too, I might add. :wink:


A recorded TV interview where silversteing actualy uses the term "pull" too.

If my house was on fire and the fire brigade said it may collapse and cause more damage and the best thing would be to avoid that (as he claimed was the reason behind his accepting that outcome) and allow them to demolish it, i'd say it was demolished.
The fact he used the terminology of "pull" has added fuel to the fires that the whole of WTC towers were rigged to go if / when the owners wanted it to.

It also stikes me as very odd how the second building to be hit, and hit with less impact and less fuel remaining inside the building than the first, was the first to collapse in exactly the same fashion as the other did only minutes later.

To my untrained brain the logic is pretty simple, thing that got damged first and worst would fall first wouldnt it? I mean, even a child could assume that as being "obvious" yet when someone mentions it they are met with the same "so what you saying? Its all a conspiracy is it?" attitude.

I'm just saying what i saw and what parts of what i saw strike me as odd.

On the day of the event i was at work, may i add this before any more anti-jewish comments are made about me - with 5 jewish peeps, 1 belarussian and 1 east end lad- i commented about how the collapse looked like any other controlled demolition i've seen on documentaries.

The collapses looked atypical of the work seen carried out by such major players in that industry like the Loizeaux Brothers, whose work i've seen in many documentaries, where their skill in demolition means the building collapses almost entirely into its own footprint.

Something that no other fire damaged building thats been filmed or documented has ever done.

[Supervox]

Have just watched the complete vid - hmm, thought provoking in parts.

Let's face it, the CIA, FBI, MI5 & MI6 (yes Lyn, I'm well aware of what your REAL new job is :lol: ) Mossad, et al are all capable of 'arranging' for the mass murder of their own or others citizens for 'the greater good' !!

I personally don't think that there can be many reasonably intelligent people who still believe that GWB is actually running the U.S. - like most Presidents in the past he has a lot of markers to pay off to the people that got him elected - in his particular case way too many to ever pay off in only 8 years.

There are an awful lot of unanswered questions about 9/11 - most of which WILL never be or CAN never be answered, which just leaves speculation & theories.

Like a lot of people I have my own ideas - based on nothing more than internet 'surfing' & reading - certainly no hard facts - but let's just say they're not a million miles away from some of the stuff mentioned in the vid.

[lynw]

Have just watched the complete vid - hmm, thought provoking in parts.

Let's face it, the CIA, FBI, MI5 & MI6 (yes Lyn, I'm well aware of what your REAL new job is :lol: ) Mossad, et al are all capable of 'arranging' for the mass murder of their own or others citizens for 'the greater good' !!

8-[ :-$

Ok, taking a step back from the human tragedy of it could this have been done by the home intelligence services? Extremely unlikely. Because in a capitalist society like the US they would have placed a higher priority of preserving the businesses and institutions that operated from the WTC.

We all know the US economy is on borrowed time. The absolute worst thing that could have happened to it was the destruction and crippling of the one sector that would have provided much needed income. In fact the economy has suffered considerably post 9/11 to the point it is arguable that anyone in the US intelligence/CIA would ever have considered the total destruction of a vital trade centre as being for the 'greater good'.

In fact whoever did this knew full well that disrupting the US and western economies would hurt the US and the western nations far, far, far more than a few car park bombs or blowing up an embassy.

[Jelster]

You see, this is why we shouldn't have these types of post on this forum....

It does nothing to add to the community, just drives a wedge between people. It's completely pointless on a bike forum and those that start the threads should know better.

.

This is why? What is why? that i got offended by something Lyn said and was mature enough to pm her and have a convo about it there so as not to bring bad feeling to the thread?

Just who are you to use my comments as a justification of your petty minded belief that these type of posts have no place here in IB?

I think that you sir are one of the biggest causes of bad feelings in threads that you dont like. If you didnt come in here to stir it up a bit with comments that you could have kept to yourself as they do nothing but antogonise, then there would be no bad feeling.

I merely informed Lyn that i found a comment offensive. And unlike some on this community i'm not one to throw my toys out the pram and ask for interesting debates to be locked cos i found something insulting.

I'm big enough and thick skinned enough to take what people have to say without thinking its a personal dig at me. I know its just sematecs sometimes.

My question to you is the same as Lyn's and the same as ive asked you before. WHY do you comment in topics you wish were not there? I have never posted in the MegaThread cos it holds no intrest to me. Its there for those who wanna partake of it, just like this thread is.

i'm just glad it was Razor who started this thread so you cant use your tired line of "its always X or Y or Z who post this stuff and nothing about bikes blah blah blah"
Razor watched a documentry (s)he found interesting and it clearly stimulated his thinking enough to want to see what others in this community think of it.

Your bike holds no intrest for me but you dont see me posting in things about your bike about it not being and SV and could we keep non SV related things to a minimum or offering / advising you to go find a forum more akin to your bike do you? No, cos i believe everyone has the right to post what they want as long as its inofensive to others in any personal way.

And if i find that subject matter uninteresting to me i go find something that i'd enjoy more.

For you to post the crap you post in threads you dont like is antagonistic at best and seriously childish at worst. I think we all know what you think of topics you dont like so do us all a favour and stop going on like a broken record. We got it the first 500 times you posted it elsewhere. :roll:

And as for your mates who say "well said" when they see you, well DUH!!! Thats why they are your mates. Cos they hold a similar view to you. I'm sure if you conducted a poll youd find a diffrent attitude.... presuming anyone bothered to respond to your thread apart from your mates that is.


....Just read that over and it sounded like i was knocking your mates, which i'm not. I'm simply saying we all hang with people who are similarly minded to us to a degree and of course share our views about certain things in life.
You wouldnt be mates with me for example cos we dont see eye to eye on things, so be it. But if you asked me the same question as you do you mates my answer would not be "well said" it would be the above.

And sometimes i think we need to hear what people who dont share our view on things have to say. I personaly find the other side of the fence's point of view interesting.

Anyway, lets move on and back to the thread.


Akbar... WTC7 was ordered to be pulled By Larry silverstein, yet it does not say that in the official 9/11 report. As you well know from the doc its because he had a very high insurance cover running on all the buildings.

And its just soooooooooo untidy to rebuild some of your buildings and not all of them, dahling ;)

Ah, I see....

I never said I didn't find what was being said of interest, I just felt it was out of place. And I didn't say they were "mates" either, just people I have met off of the forum (I do meet and ride with a number of people wha actually like to get on a bike and take it out of London from time to time, rather than chat about it or discuss politics, but each to their own I guess).

Everyone can air a view unless you don't like what's said.... Pots and kettles mate....

I'll leave you wise folk to discuss the evils of the world and how to put it right, between the lot of you must have the brain power, I mean, you've got the US and western governments all sussed already. Maybe you should stand for office ?

.

[northwind]

Everyone can air a view unless you don't like what's said.... Pots and kettles mate....


Fair enough... But IMO the difference with this is that you're criticising threads for causing division, which causes division itself... Seems counterproductive to me.

[Jelster]

Fair point too, I can see that point of view.....

.

[akbarhussain]

Ok, taking a step back from the human tragedy of it could this have been done by the home intelligence services? Extremely unlikely. Because in a capitalist society like the US they would have placed a higher priority of preserving the businesses and institutions that operated from the WTC.


In fact whoever did this knew full well that disrupting the US and western economies would hurt the US and the western nations far, far, far more than a few car park bombs or blowing up an embassy.


So the businesses and institutions don't still exist post 9/11?


In fact whoever did this knew full well that disrupting the US and western economies would hurt the US and the western nations far, far, far more than a few car park bombs or blowing up an embassy.

Do you think they also knew that it would give the US new license to go invade where they like on a scale not seen since the Cold War?

Have people forgotten what happened in Central America under Reagan/Bush 1? Any country that did not do what it was told (usually on trade agreements) suddenly became a communist threat and had their governments replaced with one that suited US policy. Sounding familiar yet?

And didn't the US sponsor contras (lol, wouldn't they be called insurgents nowadays) in Nicaragua in one of the most destructive terror campaigns there has been?

But we wouldn't do anything like that surely, afterall, we're the west. Some people are kidding themselves, seriously.

[Peter Henry]

To counter Lyn's point that America would never shoot it's self in it's own foot and so cause disruption to it's own economy, I am afraid that does not really hold water.

The industries that operated from the WTC were soon able to overcome the problems created by the incident. Furthermore there are commercial enterprises that have gained HUGELY on the back of what happened. I state the most obvious and that being the arms industry.

I do not think that I could ever be fully convinced that all of this was not America attacking America. A carefully formed plan with a wider objective in mind. To the greater degree I think the whole exercise was a success for those involved.

[lynw]

So the businesses and institutions don't still exist post 9/11?

Some do, some dont. However that still doesnt detract from the immense impact on the business itself from these events.

Where you work, could it cope easily with losing even a quarter of its staff, its premises, and its infrastructure and then continue to trade at its previous level in the aftermath? Also you have to consider the financial loss due to the lack of investor confidence within the US following the aftermath. The cost the the US economy was huge. While you can quantify the downturn in turnover for particular companies, you cant really quantify the cost in terms of putting investors off from investing in US companies, particularly the airlines.

The payroll services company for HMRC lost their head office in the refinery blast earlier this year. While it didnt lose any staff the loss of its premises and requirement to implement its disaster recovery plan has had knock on effects with errors cropping up and people not being paid properly.


Do you think they also knew that it would give the US new license to go invade where they like on a scale not seen since the Cold War?

Have people forgotten what happened in Central America under Reagan/Bush 1? Any country that did not do what it was told (usually on trade agreements) suddenly became a communist threat and had their governments replaced with one that suited US policy. Sounding familiar yet?

And didn't the US sponsor contras (lol, wouldn't they be called insurgents nowadays) in Nicaragua in one of the most destructive terror campaigns there has been?

But you answered your own point here. As you point out the US has always deemed itself to have a license to do what it likes - the bombing of Libya was a good example of that too. I dont think that whoever perpetrated 9/11 would have seen it that way. And neither do I see it as giving the US a new license or anything other than something they possibly already saw as their right to do.

[akbarhussain]

But you answered your own point here. As you point out the US has always deemed itself to have a license to do what it likes

Lol @ answering my own point - so you think it is acceptable to invade a country because they wouldn't trade with you, and then dress it up as National security?

Yes, you arecorrect in saying that the US has always done what it wanted to. But previously, they weren't as likely to openly invade a country, rather get some locals to do it for them.

What you are seeing in Iraq is the testing of their new doctrine....... and they will use it again.

[Spiderman]

But you answered your own point here. As you point out the US has always deemed itself to have a license to do what it likes

Lol @ answering my own point - so you think it is acceptable to invade a country because they wouldn't trade with you, and then dress it up as National security?

Yes, you arecorrect in saying that the US has always done what it wanted to. But previously, they weren't as likely to openly invade a country, rather get some locals to do it for them.

What you are seeing in Iraq is the testing of their new doctrine....... and they will use it again.

Sadly i think this is one of the truest comments in all these pages and one we can all agree on.

[Spiderman]

Ah, I see....

I never said I didn't find what was being said of interest, I just felt it was out of place. And I didn't say they were "mates" either, just people I have met off of the forum (I do meet and ride with a number of people wha actually like to get on a bike and take it out of London from time to time, rather than chat about it or discuss politics, but each to their own I guess).

Everyone can air a view unless you don't like what's said.... Pots and kettles mate....

I'll leave you wise folk to discuss the evils of the world and how to put it right, between the lot of you must have the brain power, I mean, you've got the US and western governments all sussed already. Maybe you should stand for office ?

.

So now youre suggesting that i dont ride my bike either? :roll: sheesh, get a grip will ya.
And it seems we clearly have enough brain power to carry out a sensible discusion without it having truned into a name calling slanging match too.
Maybe i should stand for office?

Maybe, but maybe you should stand in the corner with your hands on your head till you learn how to stop making posts that do nothing more than have a subtlke dig at people.

At least i dont do subtle, i'll tell you straight out what i think of your frankly ever increasingly petty minded posts.

[akbarhussain]

Someone just told me that Jelster doesn't own this forum........ is that true????? I was under the impression that this was his baby he was being so protective of.

[fizzwheel]

Someone just told me that Jelster doesn't own this forum........ is that true????? I was under the impression that this was his baby he was being so protective of.

No Steve doesnt own the forum. As moderators all we do is run the forum on behalf of John ( Admin )

Akabar, why do you keep having little digs at Steve if I didnt know better I would have said you were playing some childish game to get a rise out of him.

[akbarhussain]

Akabar, why do you keep having little digs at Steve if I didnt know better I would have said you were playing some childish game to get a rise out of him.


Weird, if you replace a couple of words at random in that statement, it still makes perfect sense:


Steve, why do you keep having little digs at others if I didnt know better I would have said you were playing some childish game to get a rise out of them.


I hope that answers your question Fizz.

[Tara]

as this thread has been derailed should it not be locked?

[akbarhussain]

as this thread has been derailed should it not be locked?

Good question Tara, maybe you're right. But then that was probably the aim of some posters when they launched into their little snide digs at others.

[fizzwheel]

Akabar, why do you keep having little digs at Steve if I didnt know better I would have said you were playing some childish game to get a rise out of him.


Weird, if you replace a couple of words at random in that statement, it still makes perfect sense:


Steve, why do you keep having little digs at others if I didnt know better I would have said you were playing some childish game to get a rise out of them.


I hope that answers your question Fizz.

I agree he does that to. Yet Lyn and Spidey manage to rise above it and challenge him to explain why he posts them.

So no you havent answered my question, You've just retyped what I wrote and have dodged the inital question I asked you.

I personally thought that Lyn and Spidey had sorted things out with Steve and let the matter drop. Yet you saw fit to bring it up again with your IMHO childish remark just now.

I just wandered why thats all ?

[fizzwheel]

as this thread has been derailed should it not be locked?

Good question Tara, maybe you're right. But then that was probably the aim of some posters when they launched into their little snide digs at others.

Nope I'm not locking it.

I've learnt alot from reading this thread. Stuff I didnt know and wasnt aware of. Personally to me its not a subject I wish to discuss. But I can see that for some forum users its a subject they find interesting and I dont see why an adult discussion and debate can't continue to be had on this subject.

I would prefer it if it stayed on topic though.

[akbarhussain]

Yet Lyn and Spidey manage to rise above it and challenge him to explain why he posts them.

I guess i'm just not as mature as Lynw and Spidey.

I just wandered why thats all ?

In all honesty....... because of the way that Jelster obviously spams any thread on IB that he doesn't want to see there, I was under the impression that he feels the need for attention. So I felt that my little post dedicated especially to him, would offer the much needed attention and would also serve as a peace offereing; kinda like the proverbial olive branch. I genuinely feel that myself and Jelster could be the best of mates if we could just put all of this nonsnse behind us.

On topic from now on sir. :)

[lynw]

Lol @ answering my own point - so you think it is acceptable to invade a country because they wouldn't trade with you, and then dress it up as National security?

No I dont. While I dont believe the conspiracys over 9/11 that doesnt equate to agreeing with the Bush administrations policies. If the UN had sanctioned the invasion then I think it would be different. For example the involvement in Bosnia being a UN sanctioned action to try and prevent further genocide was warranted. Late though it was.

Yes, you arecorrect in saying that the US has always done what it wanted to. But previously, they weren't as likely to openly invade a country, rather get some locals to do it for them.

What you are seeing in Iraq is the testing of their new doctrine....... and they will use it again.

Now Im not so sure on this. American opinion is very definitely turning against this policy. The fact they are talking withdrawal at this stage and leaving the country in a mess harks back to the Vietnam withdrawal. I see it as someone wise enough in the WH pointing out to stay will mean Iraq will be the next Vietnam.

The cost to the Americans was I believe negated on the revenues they thought they would incur on the rebuilding of the country. Now theyre realising that wont be forthcoming theyre starting to see the dire straights theyre in.

I dont see Iran happening just yet. Give them time to fix their economy. Also no matter how much they posture, Venezuela will be a bigger problem than Iran. The change of government is a bigger threat to their oil supplies than Iran is.

[lynw]

Lol @ answering my own point - so you think it is acceptable to invade a country because they wouldn't trade with you, and then dress it up as National security?

No I dont. While I dont believe the conspiracys over 9/11 that doesnt equate to agreeing with the Bush administrations policies. If the UN had sanctioned the invasion then I think it would be different. For example the involvement in Bosnia being a UN sanctioned action to try and prevent further genocide was warranted. Late though it was.

Yes, you arecorrect in saying that the US has always done what it wanted to. But previously, they weren't as likely to openly invade a country, rather get some locals to do it for them.

What you are seeing in Iraq is the testing of their new doctrine....... and they will use it again.

Now Im not so sure on this. American opinion is very definitely turning against this policy. The fact they are talking withdrawal at this stage and leaving the country in a mess harks back to the Vietnam withdrawal. I see it as someone wise enough in the WH pointing out to stay will mean Iraq will be the next Vietnam.

The cost to the Americans was I believe negated on the revenues they thought they would incur on the rebuilding of the country. Now theyre realising that wont be forthcoming theyre starting to see the dire straights theyre in.

I dont see Iran happening just yet. Give them time to fix their economy. Also no matter how much they posture, Venezuela will be a bigger problem than Iran. The change of government is a bigger threat to their oil supplies than Iran is.

[akbarhussain]

For example the involvement in Bosnia being a UN sanctioned action to try and prevent further genocide was warranted. Late though it was.

Oh yeah, the Bosnian war where the US flew the evil, west threatening arabs (hezbollah and al-qaeda operatives) over to conjure up some of there freedom fighting (or was that terrorism, I always forget) against the Serbs.


Now Im not so sure on this. American opinion is very definitely turning against this policy. The fact they are talking withdrawal at this stage and leaving the country in a mess harks back to the Vietnam withdrawal. I see it as someone wise enough in the WH pointing out to stay will mean Iraq will be the next Vietnam.

The cost to the Americans was I believe negated on the revenues they thought they would incur on the rebuilding of the country. Now theyre realising that wont be forthcoming theyre starting to see the dire straights theyre in.

TBH, I don't think the US ever saw Iraq as a quick financial gain, so to speak of it in that frame I beleive is incorrect.


I dont see Iran happening just yet. Give them time to fix their economy. Also no matter how much they posture, Venezuela will be a bigger problem than Iran. The change of government is a bigger threat to their oil supplies than Iran is.

Again, I don't think the lies over Irans WMD are being maintained to secure oil supplies in the short term. More of a long term balance of power to fight the long term enemy. WOnder how long it will be until China is branded the new evil empire (back to attacking communism I spose)

Be inetersting to see what approach they take with Venezuela though - back to the good ol days!

[lynw]

For example the involvement in Bosnia being a UN sanctioned action to try and prevent further genocide was warranted. Late though it was.

Oh yeah, the Bosnian war where the US flew the evil, west threatening arabs (hezbollah and al-qaeda operatives) over to conjure up some of there freedom fighting (or was that terrorism, I always forget) against the Serbs.

Well if you want more complications Hezbollah, Al qaeda, Taleban were predominantly trained, funded and armed by the CIA when Russia was the "evil" communists.

But from my understanding it was a UN backed sanction to prevent further genocide which was being carried out. Regardless of who they sent, they needed to go in and stop it. But if you look at the basis of the troops stationed there, it was predominantly UN forces.

TBH, I don't think the US ever saw Iraq as a quick financial gain, so to speak of it in that frame I beleive is incorrect.

Looking back at the speed [or lack of it] they took to go into Bosnia to protect the muslim population, the fact they have ignored attrocities in a lot of countries as bad as those they are fighting to rid Iraq of and you can see an overwhelming connection. Quite simply, Bosnia, Zimbabwe etc have no oil. Kuwait and Iraq do. Forgive me for seeing it as an economically based reason.

Again, I don't think the lies over Irans WMD are being maintained to secure oil supplies in the short term. More of a long term balance of power to fight the long term enemy. WOnder how long it will be until China is branded the new evil empire (back to attacking communism I spose)

Be inetersting to see what approach they take with Venezuela though - back to the good ol days!

See previous answer. Oil is an economic commodity and securing that would be a motive. However, you have to remember the Republicans would have a host of friends companies lined up, ready to line their pockets for restructuring work, paid for by the secured oil revenues.

Lining up said companies quite simply = republican campaign funding. Or am I being far too cynical now?

[Balky001]

Or am I being far too cynical now?

Now?? :shock: Only joking Lynw, we all love a great conspiracy story especially if you can throw a few facts in. Personally, I don't believe the primary aim of the war was over oil supplies/contracts but knowing they were going to war, I'm sure a few US/Euro entrepreneurs (or maybe mercenary capitalist may be a better term) would have seen big payouts emerging.

I don't think the situation would have been any better if sanctiuoned by the UN. Didn't that have more to do with post-war contracts anyway?

[akbarhussain]

Well if you want more complications Hezbollah, Al qaeda, Taleban were predominantly trained, funded and armed by the CIA when Russia was the "evil" communists.

That was precisely my point..... Serbia being the closest event in time where the US have used these people. Less than 5 years later, they have yet again being turned into the 'un-people'.

But no I don't think you are being too cynical.

I agree with your point about no oil in Africa/Serbia etc..... but my point is, I don't think the US sees thes crusades as a short term 'lets secure the oil now before it is too late'; but more of longer term world order issue. After all, there is not a huge amount of oil in Afghanistan, but is very strategically placed for the emerging oil field of central asia.

The point you made earlier with regard to the US economy not currently being in a helathy enough state to go immidiatley onto their next target of Iran; IMHO, the weaker the US economy is right now, the more important Iran is to them. Again, I don't see this as a 'get the oil now' crusade - well, partially, but again IMHO, the fact that the Iranians are threatening to use the Euro as their trade currency rather than the USD.

[DanDare]

Akbar, have you ever been to the US?

[Spiderman]

as this thread has been derailed should it not be locked?

Good question Tara, maybe you're right. But then that was probably the aim of some posters when they launched into their little snide digs at others.

Nope I'm not locking it.

I've learnt alot from reading this thread. Stuff I didnt know and wasnt aware of. Personally to me its not a subject I wish to discuss. But I can see that for some forum users its a subject they find interesting and I dont see why an adult discussion and debate can't continue to be had on this subject.

I would prefer it if it stayed on topic though.

Thanks Fizz for your comments, its nice to know others who have read this have actually encountered interesting things as opposed to just page after page of stuff they may have read/heard 100times before.

thank you also for not locking it and seeing where my post to jelly was comming from.
Mod of the week award to you i think :D


Yet Lyn and Spidey manage to rise above it and challenge him to explain why he posts them.

I guess i'm just not as mature as Lynw and Spidey.



hey! :shock: as anyone who's ever met me will vouch, i'm very far from mature :lol:
However, out of respect for this great website i try to make sure what i post is concise and succinct and not personaly offensive. I said i try. Sometimes i fail but i do read my posts over a few times and sometimes i'll end up editing what was almost an A4 page down to a few lines or paragraphs.

As for Iran & Venuzela.... they have both threathened to join forces and sell their oil in future in Euros. Their is nothing forcing them to trade in USD ($) and if they did start to trade in Euros that in itself would help to destabalise the USD.

I think that has been the biggest threat to america yet. No one can really fight a tradtitional battle (men/guns/tanks/) against them and win, a guerilla battle maybe.

But threaten them economicaly and they will hold off. Well at least until they put in a puppet govt of their choosing anyway ;)

[akbarhussain]

Akbar, have you ever been to the US?

Nope sir. Why do you ask?

[DanDare]

Akbar, have you ever been to the US?

Nope sir. Why do you ask?

Forgive me, I'm trying to ascertain your angle in this discussion/ thread.
You appear to anti America or Anti American government or anti Bush.

[akbarhussain]

As for Iran & Venuzela.... they have both threathened to join forces and sell their oil in future in Euros. Their is nothing forcing them to trade in USD ($) and if they did start to trade in Euros that in itself would help to destabalise the USD.

So I wonder why this story isn't given as much air/page time in the media as the Iran WMD stories....... actually nope, I don't wonder why at all.

And if I remember rightly, weren't the contracts which the French had with Iraq to buy thier oil dealing in Euros too? Hmmmm, perish the thought.

[Balky001]

And if I remember rightly, weren't the contracts which the French had with Iraq to buy thier oil dealing in Euros too? Hmmmm, perish the thought.

Yes, you are right - that's why the French wanted to keep the contracts going and not go to war. Good point Akbar, if it wasn't for this the war may well have been sanctioned by the UN.

[Spiderman]

Akbar, have you ever been to the US?

Nope sir. Why do you ask?

Forgive me, I'm trying to ascertain your angle in this discussion/ thread.
You appear to anti America or Anti American government or anti Bush.

Why is it when someone questions things they see as the wrong doing of certain govts they are immeadiately anit-that thing?

I dont like it when it rains but i'm not anti-weather.

This is almost becoming like the attitude of criticising anything israeli or jewish makes you anti-semetic.

I dont see it that way, if i see someone driving really badly while on a handheld mobile i'll crticise them for that behaviour being incorrect and illegal. If that person happens to be jewish/black/spotty/fat/gay or whatever onlookers may think i'm having a go at what they see. Ie they see me having a pop at this black guy and asume ive got something against black people and say i'm racist.
And how wrong is that?

[DanDare]

Akbar, have you ever been to the US?

Nope sir. Why do you ask?

Forgive me, I'm trying to ascertain your angle in this discussion/ thread.
You appear to anti America or Anti American government or anti Bush.

Why is it when someone questions things they see as the wrong doing of certain govts they are immeadiately anit-that thing?

I dont like it when it rains but i'm not anti-weather.

This is almost becoming like the attitude of criticising anything israeli or jewish makes you anti-semetic.

I dont see it that way, if i see someone driving really badly while on a handheld mobile i'll crticise them for that behaviour being incorrect and illegal. If that person happens to be jewish/black/spotty/fat/gay or whatever onlookers may think i'm having a go at what they see. Ie they see me having a pop at this black guy and asume ive got something against black people and say i'm racist.
And how wrong is that?

Calm down Spider dude, I was simply asking the question, not accussing him of anything, I was just asking his stance on it. I just thought a few comments pointed toward that and justy clarifying it.

[akbarhussain]

And if I remember rightly, weren't the contracts which the French had with Iraq to buy thier oil dealing in Euros too? Hmmmm, perish the thought.

Yes, you are right - that's why the French wanted to keep the contracts going and not go to war. Good point Akbar, if it wasn't for this the war may well have been sanctioned by the UN.

lol - I really can't be bothered to dig through the UN website to find this, but feel free to if you have the time. But i'll think you'll find it wasn't just the French that vetoed the resolution for war. In fact, i'm pretty sure it was only the US/UK + one or two others that were in favour.

But good point anyway :)

[akbarhussain]

Akbar, have you ever been to the US?

Nope sir. Why do you ask?

Forgive me, I'm trying to ascertain your angle in this discussion/ thread.
You appear to anti America or Anti American government or anti Bush.

Why is it when someone questions things they see as the wrong doing of certain govts they are immeadiately anit-that thing?

I dont like it when it rains but i'm not anti-weather.

This is almost becoming like the attitude of criticising anything israeli or jewish makes you anti-semetic.

I dont see it that way, if i see someone driving really badly while on a handheld mobile i'll crticise them for that behaviour being incorrect and illegal. If that person happens to be jewish/black/spotty/fat/gay or whatever onlookers may think i'm having a go at what they see. Ie they see me having a pop at this black guy and asume ive got something against black people and say i'm racist.
And how wrong is that?

Calm down Spider dude, I was simply asking the question, not accussing him of anything, I was just asking his stance on it. I just thought a few comments pointed toward that and justy clarifying it.

I am certainly not anti-american; anti-american-government or anti-bush? Hmmmmmm, I might find either of those a bit harder to deny - but in essence, i'm not even sure that they would encompass it.

Anti-capitalist? Anti-Globalist? The problem I have with these is that they have been hijacked by the right to thorw at anyone that disagrees with their point of view; and I am certainly not an anarchist.

TBH, I dunno how you would classify my position - idealist maybe? Or just plain unrealistic, lol. :wink:

[DanDare]

Ever thought of a career in politics?

[Balky001]

TBH, I dunno how you would classify my position - idealist maybe? Or just plain unrealistic, lol. :wink:

Objective? Hmmm, maybe not! :wink: We're all idealist just have different ideals - thankfully

[Anonymous]

As for Iran & Venuzela.... they have both threathened to join forces and sell their oil in future in Euros. Their is nothing forcing them to trade in USD ($) and if they did start to trade in Euros that in itself would help to destabalise the USD.

I think that has been the biggest threat to america yet. No one can really fight a tradtitional battle (men/guns/tanks/) against them and win, a guerilla battle maybe.


=D> =D>

Bravo Spiderman! Well said!! I'm just so stunned that only you and Akbarhussain are able to see these things so clearly. It's war - war on the so-called mighty dollar.

I know the euro hasn't been around too long, and it's been prety unstable due to the poor economies of Germany and France, but it makes real sense for Venezuela with its huge GDP of $6100 per person and Iran (GDP $8300 pp) - plus Syria with GDP of $3900 pp - to take on the dollar.

Personally, I am sickened at the sight of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates cosying up to give away $60 BILLION dollars over the next twenty years. I am sure when that has all been made worthless by the power of the new Iran-Venezuela axis, then the real philanthropy of Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Assad will be seen. All those those stupid pension funds who invested in Berkeley Hathaway will have to tell loads of old guys that they've got to go back to work - and serve them right. They should have gone and worked in Iran and Venezuela in the first place. And all those stupid companies that sell things to America - well, they'll just sell their stuff to Iran and Venezuela I mean, just add their populations and GDPs up - that's an average better than quite a lot of small countries. So, Go Venezuela, Spiderman and Akbar!!!!

Personally though, I still think that it would have been far better for Europe to have done a deal with Stalin or Hitler - it would have stopped America in its tracks in 1943, and saved a lot of countries from being invaded.

[akbarhussain]

TBH, I dunno how you would classify my position - idealist maybe? Or just plain unrealistic, lol. :wink:

Objective? Hmmm, maybe not! :wink: We're all idealist just have different ideals - thankfully

I feel that you should try to backup your insinuation that I am not objective, despite the emoticom. Honestly, an internet forum is NOT the best place to discuss anything of this nature simply becasue of the lack of context. But if you think I am not objective then I would love to hear your views.

Thankfully yes, we don't all share the same ideals.

[akbarhussain]

Ever thought of a career in politics?

I don't really think that a career in politics would do me or anyone any good.

If you look currently at anyone that disagrees with government concencus, they are either:

a) corrupted to bring them into line

b) sidelined, so that their opiniojn is no longer heard by the public

or at worst

c) given an early bath, so to speak. RIP Dr. David Kelly.

I don't really see any way out of our current situation.

[DanDare]

Ever thought of a career in politics?

I don't really think that a career in politics would do me or anyone any good.

If you look currently at anyone that disagrees with government concencus, they are either:

a) corrupted to bring them into line

b) sidelined, so that their opiniojn is no longer heard by the public

or at worst

c) given an early bath, so to speak. RIP Dr. David Kelly.

I don't really see any way out of our current situation.

Oohh David Kelly, don't get me started. :evil: :evil:

Thats a bit defeatist, stand up for your rights and all that.

[Balky001]

Objective = Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Oh Akbar, do me a favour. When was the last time you looked at US policy thinking hmm, I think this might be reasonable?

[akbarhussain]

Objective = Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Oh Akbar, do me a favour. When was the last time you looked at US policy thinking hmm, I think this might be reasonable?

Thanks Balky...... but I have a perfectly decent copy of the Oxford English on my desk next to me, and am fully aware of the definition of the word.

And to use your example, it is very rare that I see anything in US foreign policy that I like, or am not cynical of. But that doesn't tell me how I am un-objective.

[Balky001]

Thanks Balky...... but I have a perfectly decent copy of the Oxford English on my desk next to me, and am fully aware of the definition of the word.

And to use your example, it is very rare that I see anything in US foreign policy that I like, or am not cynical of. But that doesn't tell me how I am un-objective.

Akbar - if you want me to expand .... :roll:

You say you are cynical (of US policy). Now look that up in your dictionary and see if that fits in with being objective. Just in case you only have a small dictionary here's a couple of definitions of a cynic from mine -

A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.
A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.

I'm not sure a cynic can be truely objective.

[akbarhussain]

Akbar - if you want me to expand .... :roll:

You say you are cynical (of US policy). Now look that up in your dictionary and see if that fits in with being objective. Just in case you only have a small dictionary here's a couple of definitions of a cynic from mine -

A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.
A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.

I'm not sure a cynic can be truely objective.

Seriously now, you are either intentionally misquoting me or just not reading very carefully. Which makes you look a bit silly really when you start using the rolling eyes smilie. To quote my statement

And to use your example, it is very rare that I see anything in US foreign policy that I like, or am not cynical of. But that doesn't tell me how I am un-objective.

I didn't say I was cynical or had a dislike for before looking at US foreign policy - simply that there are very few things that I like or am not cynical of. That is, after objectively looking at it.

For example, the US very regularly donates aid to people in the world that are less well of than they are - this, I am quite often cynical of - simply because time and time again, they tend to give aid when anfd to whom it suits. That does not make me cynical of US foreign Policy in general though.

So in fact, I would say that it is you that is not being objective - you seem to be making sweeping statements over my views without really inderstanding them. SO if you can, please tell me how I am not objective when it comes to US foreign policy?

[lynw]

Personally though, I still think that it would have been far better for Europe to have done a deal with Stalin or Hitler - it would have stopped America in its tracks in 1943, and saved a lot of countries from being invaded.

Can I suggest before you post you actually check out your facts first?

In case it escaped you, we had an alliance with Stalin from '41-'45. While that alliance was one of wartime necessity it was still there. And the fact is in reality it was a triumvirate of powers with the triumvirs being the UK, the Soviet Union and the USA.

And like the triumvirates of Caesar and Caesar Augustus when he was still known as Octavian, the balance of power was such that no one triumvir could strike out at any other without destroying the triumvirate and all that they were aiming for. The triumvirate worked because each of the triumvirs backed the others.

As for the last bit about the countries the US has invaded. I think you'll find the Nazis are still up on that count having invaded pretty much most of Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East.

As for my opinion, I think you are extremely misguided to believe an alliance with the Nazis would have worked, been good for this country or not implicated us in the level of attrocities that they carried out.

But if you truly believe that, I wonder if you have the courage to say it to the veterans on the Rememberance day parades to their faces. I suspect you wouldnt have, though if you want to prove me wrong Ill happily witness it. :P

[Spiderman]

Calm down Spider dude, I was simply asking the question, not accussing him of anything, I was just asking his stance on it. I just thought a few comments pointed toward that and justy clarifying it.

Trust me fella, I'm calm.
Sorry if my post came across anything other than that. But i just have a big dislike for these constant Anti-somethingorother words that run around like they mean anything.

Me? I'm anti Bush. I'll happily admit that. Why am I? Simply, cos he's just so stupid that it bothers me about the mentality of anyone who would vote for him. His policies arent his own as he has no political knowledge to be able to formulate anyhting worthwhile in that arena. His so called advisors (read neo con war mongers if you will) have their own agenda and its easy to sell to someone who thinks he hears gods voice telling him right from wrong.

No clown, thats not gods voice, its your defence secretay hiding behind the oval office curtains whispering instructions at you. :lol:

Like i said before, if anyone else was to say "I hear gods voice and he directs me to do this" and the "this" involved killing, they'd be sectioned and locked up quicker than a quick thing on a really quick bike.

But when you are the leader of the US armies its apparently a sign of your piousness or nobility of attitude. :roll:

The guys a dummy. When he came into office there was the famous interview where he didnt even know the name of the Pakisani president. A man who was on the brink of a war with his neighbour India and had plenty of nukes at his disposal too. You'd think that would be part of the basic hazard perception test to be Prez wouldnt you? Knowing the names of the leaders of other countries.

[Anonymous]

As for the last bit about the countries the US has invaded. I think you'll find the Nazis are still up on that count having invaded pretty much most of Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East.

Wow! I didn't know that! In my efforts to support Spiderman and Akbarhussain, I was so SURE that they had implied that America had been doing all the invading for the last 100 years or so - as part of a well-known plan to rule the world. So, the Germans nearly ruled the world then....was that the same sort of plan as America...and who stopped them from succeeding?

Like i said before, if anyone else was to say "I hear gods voice and he directs me to do this" and the "this" involved killing, they'd be sectioned and locked up quicker than a quick thing on a really quick bike.

Oops! Doesn't Osama say that his God ("Allah") directs him to do things? But then, I think we could all accept that HIS God is better than GWB's.

[northwind]

Oh dear. Have you fallen for "You're either for us or against us"? It's possibly to criticise GWB without being an Osama Bin Laden cheerleader you know.

[Spiderman]

Like i said before, if anyone else was to say "I hear gods voice and he directs me to do this" and the "this" involved killing, they'd be sectioned and locked up quicker than a quick thing on a really quick bike.

Oops! Doesn't Osama say that his God ("Allah") directs him to do things? But then, I think we could all accept that HIS God is better than GWB's.

Just cos i knock bush please dont think that i have any leanings towards the other crazy camp either. the point i was making was just that, anyone who cliams to be led by any god to kill and destroy other lands and people is someone i'm scared of.
Yet bizzarely millions of people on all sides of the world follow them and vote for them.

Clearly a case of loonies not just running the asylum , but most of the world.

[Anonymous]

Oh dear. Have you fallen for "You're either for us or against us"? It's possibly to criticise GWB without being an Osama Bin Laden cheerleader you know.

Oh NO! I do realise that - I was just supporting Spiderman by pointing out that two extreme poles of political thought both listen to their God...but one was obviously more justified in doing so than the other. No, I'm with you guys in the "GWB is as thick as a brick" camp... I mean, do you KNOW how many people get accepted on to Harvard Business School's MBA programme each year? 1800!! I ask you! Now if he'd done an MBA at Leicester or Kent, that would be far more meaningful and exclusive - only about 70 or 80 a year there!!

[Flamin_Squirrel]

For example, the US very regularly donates aid to people in the world that are less well of than they are - this, I am quite often cynical of - simply because time and time again, they tend to give aid when anfd to whom it suits.

Imo I think this illustrates quite nicely that you are indeed subjective, and bias against the US in general. What do you expect the US to do, give money to people who it DOESNT suit?

Would you see fellow arab countries donating money to the Palestinians, for example, as cynical too?

There's no such thing as a truely selfless act, so I don't really see how you can consider giving aid as cynical. Aid is aid, if it benefits both parties, so be it.

[Ping]

In all honesty....... because of the way that Jelster obviously spams any thread on IB that he doesn't want to see there, I was under the impression that he feels the need for attention. So I felt that my little post dedicated especially to him, would offer the much needed attention and would also serve as a peace offereing; kinda like the proverbial olive branch. I genuinely feel that myself and Jelster could be the best of mates if we could just put all of this nonsnse behind us.

On topic from now on sir. :)
Words fail me. Your 'olive branch' is riddled with worms and you KNOW it. This post shows it for all to see.

The better man would've just let it lie and he did.

Stop your personal digs Akbar, they belittle you.

[akbarhussain]

For example, the US very regularly donates aid to people in the world that are less well of than they are - this, I am quite often cynical of - simply because time and time again, they tend to give aid when anfd to whom it suits.

Imo I think this illustrates quite nicely that you are indeed subjective, and bias against the US in general. What do you expect the US to do, give money to people who it DOESNT suit?

Would you see fellow arab countries donating money to the Palestinians, for example, as cynical too?

There's no such thing as a truely selfless act, so I don't really see how you can consider giving aid as cynical. Aid is aid, if it benefits both parties, so be it.

Seriously, please start reading my posts. I didn't say that giving aid was cynical..... I said that I was cynical of the reasons that aid is often given.

lol @ someone that refers to my 'fellow arab countries' and is seen to be criticising my objectivity in the same post. Just lol.

[akbarhussain]

In all honesty....... because of the way that Jelster obviously spams any thread on IB that he doesn't want to see there, I was under the impression that he feels the need for attention. So I felt that my little post dedicated especially to him, would offer the much needed attention and would also serve as a peace offereing; kinda like the proverbial olive branch. I genuinely feel that myself and Jelster could be the best of mates if we could just put all of this nonsnse behind us.

On topic from now on sir. :)
Words fail me. Your 'olive branch' is riddled with worms and you KNOW it. This post shows it for all to see.

The better man would've just let it lie and he did.

Stop your personal digs Akbar, they belittle you.


Hmmmm, let it lie, ofcourse he did. My post was intended to mock the fact that he still keeps turning up on these threads, despite the fact that he needs everyone to know that he despises them.

I've already been quizzed on this by Fizz; and I believe the conclusion was that I am not yet mature enough to rise above these things. I will try harder in future Ping, I promise.

[helen]

Akbar, can't you go and LOL somewhere else for a bit?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Seriously, please start reading my posts. I didn't say that giving aid was cynical..... I said that I was cynical of the reasons that aid is often given.

I did read your post. Aid doesnt just distribute itself of its own accord, there has to be reasoning behind it - therefore to say that the action and the reasoning are mutualy exclusive is nonsense. It's either cynical or it isnt.

lol @ someone that refers to my 'fellow arab countries' and is seen to be criticising my objectivity in the same post. Just lol.

I didnt say your fellow arab countries anywhere.

[akbarhussain]

Seriously, please start reading my posts. I didn't say that giving aid was cynical..... I said that I was cynical of the reasons that aid is often given.

I did read your post. Aid doesnt just distribute itself of its own accord, there has to be reasoning behind it - therefore to say that the action and the reasoning are mutualy exclusive is nonsense. It's either cynical or it isnt.

lol @ someone that refers to my 'fellow arab countries' and is seen to be criticising my objectivity in the same post. Just lol.

I didnt say your fellow arab countries anywhere.

Ridiculous.

So whose 'fellow' arab countries were you referring to? Or just poor grammar in that particular post.

[akbarhussain]

Akbar, can't you go and LOL somewhere else for a bit?

Nope, too many posts to be lol'ed at here i'm afraid.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Ridiculous.

What? How can you seriously say that actions arent based on reasoning? That makes no sense.

So whose 'fellow' arab countries were you referring to? Or just poor grammar in that particular post.

Are you having a laugh? Countries allied to Palestine then, is that clearer?

[akbarhussain]

Ridiculous.

What? How can you seriously say that actions arent based on reasoning? That makes no sense.

So whose 'fellow' arab countries were you referring to? Or just poor grammar in that particular post.

Are you having a laugh? Countries allied to Palestine then, is that clearer?


Actions are based on reasoning. An action isn't cynical, it is the reasoning behind an action that is cynical. But that is simply semantics...... i'm yet to be told how my opinions are not objective. Apart from by people that are taking a very subjective view to the whole issue.


That is clearer, thankyou.

[Viney]

Blimey, is this still going. Anyone worked out what happened? Anyone want a cup of tea??


This post was made in Jest by viney :D

I'll go now

[21QUEST]

Ridiculous.

What? How can you seriously say that actions arent based on reasoning? That makes no sense.

So whose 'fellow' arab countries were you referring to? Or just poor grammar in that particular post.

Are you having a laugh? Countries allied to Palestine then, is that clearer?


Actions are based on reasoning. An action isn't cynical, it is the reasoning behind an action that is cynical. But that is simply semantics...... i'm yet to be told how my opinions are not objective. Apart from by people that are taking a very subjective view to the whole issue.


That is clearer, thankyou.

Ok if it's okay with you let me throw that back at you.

What is the reasoning behind you actions ie your posts in general.

Cheers
Ben

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Actions are based on reasoning. An action isn't cynical, it is the reasoning behind an action that is cynical.

The two are inseperable, either the action and reason are cynical or they arent.

...... i'm yet to be told how my opinions are not objective. Apart from by people that are taking a very subjective view to the whole issue.

Because if you see the US giving aid to others as a negative simply because it benefits them at the same time.

[akbarhussain]

Au contraire.

[DanDare]

Slightly off topic but did you know that George Bush did not win the Presidency on votes. He was awarded it by the Supreme Court as ballots in Florida were undecisive. Bet they're regretting that decision. :D

Read it last night, did know if it was common knowledge.

[lynw]

Read it last night, did know if it was common knowledge.

Oh yes, its extremely common knowledge to anyone who reads current affairs or watches the news.

Wow! I didn't know that! In my efforts to support Spiderman and Akbarhussain, I was so SURE that they had implied that America had been doing all the invading for the last 100 years or so - as part of a well-known plan to rule the world. So, the Germans nearly ruled the world then....was that the same sort of plan as America...and who stopped them from succeeding?

In regard to the D Day landings, the Nazis had invaded most of Europe, at the time the allied forces were liberating it. A subtle difference there. :wink:
And theres a world of difference between funding one side in civil wars to actually doing the invading. Please don't forget that throughout the cold war while the US was guilty of this, so to were the Soviets.

Re the Germans nearly ruling the world, scarily it was achievable. We were stretched to breaking point and even the US intervention was not effectively achieving a breakthrough. The turning point for us and against Hitler was his mistake in attacking the USSR and pushing them into the alliance with the UK and USA.

Cant remember author but hes written some good books on this kind of thing. I know one of his books is called the Weather Factor. Its quite simply about how the weather has changed the course of battles and events surprisingly overturning the overwhelming odds one side had against the other.

[akbarhussain]

Slightly off topic but did you know that George Bush did not win the Presidency on votes. He was awarded it by the Supreme Court as ballots in Florida were undecisive. Bet they're regretting that decision. :D

Read it last night, did know if it was common knowledge.

Yep, his good old mate Jeb helped him with that one somewhat down in Florida.

Funnily enough, Jeb is also one of the guys publically promoting the US's position in the world order. And I thought they used to keep these things quiet:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[DanDare]

Hopefully we can now lay this to rest. :lol: :lol: :lol:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_(band)

[falc]

Good video innit? :D

Carry on