New World Order: Conspiracy Theory ( & A Whole Lot More)

^We watched a documentary of it in American History in high school, I remember it because it showed the whole footage of the assassination.

Personally, I think the best theory was it was the mafia, or mob related in some way. It makes the most sense, it resembled a mob hit, and they used Oswald as a decoy. Then they sent Jack Ruby to whack Oswald. Seriously of all the mysteries in history, this is one of the ones that I really wish I knew.
 
PrettyEyes said:
You know if it was the Canadian Prime Minister or the King of Jordan, that scene would never have been filmed, let alone distributed.

So nobody would want to watch one of America's better presidents being assassinated? No. I know that to this day people go to the Ford Museum -- where the presidential car is -- to see if they can spot any brains. Some one flipped out because it was cleaned when I was there.

People are fascinated by death. They'd be watching that assassination video if it was just some random man walking down the street. There were probably dozens of video cameras out that day. Would you not bring anything to photograph the head of your country if he came driving by?
 
*Note: extremely aggrevated. Second time writing everything over because my connection failed and I stupidly did not save what I had written...

BabaOReilly said
Who, the American public?

No not the American public… you'll know more about it when Desert checks back in. She'll tell you who really chooses the presidents.

PrettyEyes said
Are you honestly going to tell me that you place no responsibility whatsoever on the moronic, brainwashed nimrods who hijacked the planes on 9/11? How about the al-qaeda "masterminds" who simply want to inflict pain on the US because they don't agree with our beliefs. As for Clarke, I don't trust that man as far as I could throw him. Give me Gen. Tommy Franks any day. He's a man of honor, who wouldn't sell his country out for any reason.

:lol: Where do I begin! Who MADE bin laden???? If you're going to sit here and tell me it was bin laden that killed those people, blah blah blah... okay, let's take things from your perspective for a moment now, and I'll sit here and pretend I also believe it was bin Laden that "inflicted pain" on the US. I will sit here and tell myself that Bush has his country’s best interest in mind when he makes the choices he did… okay, having accomplished lying to myself for a few minutes, I can’t help but wonder… if this evil evil bin Laden guy killed 3000 of my people, 3000 innocent people that are not militants or government officials in any way, just ordinary every day people – murdered by some cold hearted terrorist Muslim… if all of that really happened and it really was bin laden to blame, then what the heck are American troops doing in Iraq? Bush sent some 11,000 troops to the alleged “terrorist” nation of Afghanistan to find and question, or possibly kill the al-Qaeda members for all the harm they have caused his nation…11,000 troops? Cmon, I mean there are possibly more than 11,000 cops in any city in America – dealing with things like robbery or assault, possibly murder cases as well… and he sends 11,000 to catch some mass murderer that hates all the people in the world that do not believe in Islam? and let’s be realistic here, I know the guy has money, but he hides in a stinkin cave…it wouldn’t have been harder to find him than it was to “find Saddam” – who has (insert number here) clones. And after funding Al-Qaeda, giving them millions of dollars and support and training – you would think the American government knows where his royal Sheepness is hiding, after all, he was at one point a CIA favorite... And you really have to ask yourself, why was the head of the Taliban in the US just 5 months before 9/11 trying to “improve the image” of the Taliban- the image that Bush’s government and the previous US governments had showed their public by funding these “terrorists”, they’re trying to tarnish the image they had themselves created for the Taliban. So there they were, 5 months prior to the largest attack ever on American grounds, improving the image of the very group that would have been one to “shelter and protect” Al-Qaeida. Your nation created this “monster”, and if he really did attack the towers then there is no way in God’s name that he could have done it without help from the American government. And since he’s the criminal mastermind behind the attacks, then I’d really like to know what US troops are doin in Iraq (besides raping men, women and children of course ), when they should be over in Afghanistan finding/killing/raping bin laden, don’t you agree? ;)

Showtime thank you for sharing that site, but it didn’t do much for me. If that one man is still alive, well so is Dr. Len Horowitz, Michael Moore, Immortal Technique, Jedi Mind Tricks… the list goes on. I know for a fact that Immortal Technique and Dr Horowitz were threatened for speaking out, and didn’t you think that perhaps the reason he is still alive is that for them to kill him would be showing the public that not only do they kill 3000 of their own people, but they kill anyone who practices free speech as well? Give it a few years and they will find a way to kill these people and ruling their deaths out as “suicide” or something. And if you really find it hard to believe that a government can kill their own innocent people, then why is your president after Saddam for killing innocent people? It is possible, but people refuse to believe that something like that can happen in a democracy. And no offense to Madox or whatever the website creator’s name was, but by sitting there writing “eat my sh**”, he doesn’t make a very respectable person, nor one I would ever bother relying on for any information. So that really did not do anything for me, I have no problem being proven wrong, honestly I don’t. So if you’re trying to stump me or something, go right ahead and do it, I do not fear that. But at least make it something that would really hit me in the head rather than make me wonder when the writer is going to grow up and mature rather than curse to get his point across. It really is kind of lame.

As for JFK, I personally believe the iisraelis had a lot to do with his assassination. He was the one president that spoke up about their secret nuclear weapons as well as sympathized with the Arabs, and what a coincidence, he ended up dead. I’ve heard a lot of other theories, some sound believable, like the whole Lyndon Johnson theory, or the fact that he was Roman Catholic and not Protestant… the list goes on. but to me, I have a lot of reason to believe that it was the iisraelis. But that’s a whole other story, if you know what I mean ;).

People are traumatized by his assassination because he had potential, because there would have probably been a safer world had he survived… Bush just doesn’t give people that kind of hope. He and his father have a love for wars (don’t take my word for it, he said himself that he’s a war president). Many people see no harm in him being assassinated, I won’t lie, I would be a very happy camper if that happened, as would many others who probably just don’t want to admit it online. When someone damages nations and kills civilians in the name of something these people never quite wanted or understood (democracy), very few people will remember this man as a hero- or shed a single tear when he is gone. In fact, the world just might become a better place after all.
 
Roka, may I add my knowledge here. Asfaik US troops are in Iraq first of all to search for mass-destruction weapons. Not there to chase Al-Quaida.
There are rumors for Iraq supporting Al Quaida. Nevertheless main order of US-Army in NY is to find proofs for mass-destruction weapons.


You also wonder why Bush sent whole 11.000 people to Afghanistan.
I think Iraq could be explaination for this, too. Iraq has neither a powerfull army nor well-working police-institutions. So foreign troops help building up a massive army. And they support single police-commandos doin´effective patrols.
So maybe US army also helps the same in Afghanistan?


Another worry of you is Bush migh have helped Bin-Laden with 9/11. Your serious with that fear? That´s no scrups man. :( :( Why should Bush kill so many innocent civillians? :eek:
 
That was not my point Detective, i KNOW they didn't go to Iraq looking for Al-Qaeida :lol:, I meant it in a way that if their real concern is Al-Qaeida they should be in Afghanistan, not Iraq, sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. And since theyre in Iraq for WMD, I'd like to know how many they have found so far ;)

Why would any government kill their own people and put the blame on someone else? It isn't something impossible, I don't know why some of you are so surprised in hearing that,it can happen to any country anywhere on this planet.

And I doubt they're helping in Iraq, I've spoken to many Iraqis that have swore that their lives, although at risk, (especially the Shiias) were ALOT easier before the Americans came along claiming to fight for democracy, that they're saving these people from an evil dictator. I'm just saying, if you really think that what the US troops are doing for Iraq is helping them, I don't know what more I can say to you - you don't torture and humiliate and bomb civilian houses to help people. It just doesn't go down that way. Go ahead and tell me now that Hitler was helping people when he killed the crippled or handicapped people, or when he said that anyone less than perfect must die. That was helping too?
 
USA claims Iraq´s supporting AL Quaide. And: What´s a WMD, please?

You say there´s a chance of governments killing civillians. Now you got me curious. What motives are you thinkin´ ´bout, apart from insanity?
(btw: If a governemt kills its citizens, who should re-elect them then? :devil:)

In Iraq you seem to twist my words. :devil:
I said they help police and extending army. I only referred to this concrete two things.
I never agreed torture or humilation by crazy GIs. :(
 
No USA claimed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), thats why it attacked Iraq. If it really believed they were supporting Al Qaida, why didn't they finish al-Qaeida off first and then attack its "supporters".

Richard Clarke: Bush's counterterrorism chief, interviewed by Charles Gibson on Good Morning America

Charles Gibson: you come in September 12 ready to plot what response we take to al Qaeda. let me talk to the...about the response that you got from top administration officials. On that day, what did the president say to you?

Richard Clarke: The president, in a very intimidating way, left us, me and my staff, with the clear indication that he wanted us to come back with the word that there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11. Because they had been planning to do somethign abotu Iraq from before the time they came into office.

Charles Gibson: Did he ask about any other nations other than Iraq?

Richard Clarke: No. No, no no. Not at all. it was Iraq, Saddam. Find out, get back to me.

Charles Gibson: And were his questions more abotu Iraq than about al Qaeda?

Richard Clarke: Absolutely. Absolutely. He didn't ask me about Al Qaeda.

Charles Gibson: And the reaction you got that day from the Defense Secratary, Donald Rumsfeld, from his assistant Paul Wolfowitz?

Richard Clarke: Well, Donald Rumsfeld said, when we talked about bombing the al Qaeda infrastructure in Afghanistan, he said there were no good targets in Afghanistan. Let's bomb Iraq. And we said, but Iraq had nothing to do with this. And that didn't seem to make much difference. And the reason they had to do Afghanistan first was it was obvious that al Qaeda had attacked us, and it was obvious that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. The American people wouldn't have stood by if we had done nothing on Afghanistan.


Okay, what motives would they have? The initial motive of the NWO members is world domination through One Government, where one government controls finances, oil and the likes, and when the oil is done, they rely on nuclear energy, which, up until now, 80% of it is owned by one of the Illuminati families. They would get to this position by instilling fear in the hearts of people world wide, until people are helpless and rely on their governments entirely to solve the problem, regardless of what methods the government may use. It isn't insanity, it's actually a very calculated task, something that has been studied for decades now, it is about power and control, and believe me, how many people die during the process is not something that disturbs them.

And I know what you said about Iraq, I am not twisting your words, I'm telling you that they are not helping the police, they are only torturing and killing people. Your claim that they are, in any way, aiding the Iraqi people - does not seem to be somethign I can understand, they have not helped Iraq, they have destroyed it.
 
Roka4csi said: No USA claimed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), thats why it attacked Iraq. If it really believed they were supporting Al Qaida, why didn't they finish al-Qaeida off first and then attack its "supporters". (...)
Because this are two different wars. They just fight them the same time.
In Iraq they´re looking for WMD.
In Afghanistan they hunt terrorists.


I guess I really can´t follow you with the interview. To me it just looks like

Person A: "Hat time is it?"
Person B: "Saturday."
Person A says this. But Person B says that! I only see a pile of contradictions.

I´ll ask you about this later.



Take German Bundeswehr. In Iraq they join police patroling the streets. Believe me or not. ;)
 
While the interview is not surprising, it doesn't make America completely responsible for 9/11 does it? It just proves that Bush's government is opportunistic and that the American public is easily led astray. They convinced everyone that they needed to go into Iraq due to the all-encompassing term "terrorism". And the majority of Americans can't tell one Arabic country from the other anyway so they think, "We got attacked by terrorists from the Middle East. Let's attack the Middle East." When the people who can tell the difference question the government's line of thinking, the government creates the "WMD" theory and then begins a process of talking in circles and hyperbole to keep everyone on their toes (and off their backs!) just long enough to ignore the UN and act unilaterally by attacking Iraq. Then it becomes a case of, "well, we're there... we might as well try to finish the job, even though no wmd's were found."

Again, all your facts are sound, but the direction you take them in seems a little self-serving for your own personal arguments, roka. I appreciate your attention to detail, however, I feel that it shows the American government as single-minded and opportunistic, not a nation who would consciously murder thousands of their own civilians.
 
Afghanistan a bad target? That´s more than improbable. US weapons are hight-technology. They break tanks as well as rocks.

(Not to mention special teams like Special Forces or Navy Seals. They´re educated for such difficulties. They also avoid civil victims.)

So, Afganistan suddenly nothing than one big "betrail" to win votes pro war?
 
Roka4csi said:
No USA claimed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), thats why it attacked Iraq. If it really believed they were supporting Al Qaida, why didn't they finish al-Qaeida off first and then attack its "supporters".

Remember the Bushism what I quoted in my last post ;)
 
I´m afraid not. That´s kinda too high for me. :D

In little steps, please stop me as soon as I get wrong. :)

According to Rokas interview Bush planed to blame Iraq for 9/11. But they had to attack Afghanistan before, because citizens thought Al-Quaida caused 9/11?
 
Baba that wasn't to prove that Bush knew about the attacks and let it happen, that interview was to show you all that (according to Clarke), Bush knew it was Al-Qaeda that had made the attack, but wanted to go into Iraq and asked that they find any reason at all to feed the American public so they could attack Iraq. I think the Presidential Daily Brief from August 6,2001 shows you that Bush knew of the attack beforehand and did not do what he could have done to prevent it. And again I'll remind you that bin Laden was a CIA tactitian, I really doubt that he went to many places that America did not know of.

Baba said:
Again, all your facts are sound, but the direction you take them in seems a little self-serving for your own personal arguments, roka. I appreciate your attention to detail, however, I feel that it shows the American government as single-minded and opportunistic, not a nation who would consciously murder thousands of their own civilians.

Okay Baba, I am here to give out the information that I believe in and support it with the text that I have. When someone says something that I believe is wrong, I provide you all with the reasons why I believe it is wrong... so of course it's going to sound like they're "self-serving". When you say something that I do not know how to reply to, I will tell you that I don't know it, there's no shame in that. But as long as I have an answer, no matter how "self-serving" it appears to be, I am going to give it out and the arguments that come from it will be more than welcome. Yes, it does show that the nation is single-minded and opportunistic, and knowing that they have those two characteristics does not make it difficult to see that for their own reasons they would be willing to kill 3000. Killing civilians is not new, it's happened everywhere and it can happen now. I don't know why people refuse to see that, the USA is not as democratic as they make people think they are. It is in no way surprising to me that they would kill that many people. Democracies are not what they are supposed to be, if Hitler and Saddam can kill civilians, I have no doubt in my mind that Bush would as well.
Detective... Bush had plans to attack Iraq before he became President (which obviously means he knew he would become President. But yes, they attacked Afghanistan because all the citizens knew that it was Al-Qaeda that had attacked the US. So they went on a "search" for bin Laden.
 
So Bush actually only planned invading Iraq. Attacking Afghanistan was only to let people believe they fight Al Quaida?

Hm - so, this 3000 lives. Why should a president care 3000 lives? :D Maybe governments are too busy for caring innocent victims. However let me come back to elections.
Not crying any tear for damn 3000 killings is pretty cold-blooded.

I still wonder can´t you predict brutality-addiction before you elect a president?
 
It isn't about predicting it, it's about knowing their past. But obviously that wouldn't have slowed Bush down anyway.

Yes, he planned on invading Iraq, it was for the oil - as well as personal reasons [in a speech he made about terrorism he noted that Saddam was evil and all that stuff he always blabs about, then ended it by saying that "this was the man that tried to kill my father."] I don't know if they ever had plans to attack Afghanistan, so I won't be saying anythin about that. What I do know is that on many occasions members of the Taliban as well as members of the bin Laden family(who is Saudi Arabian, not Afghani) and the Royal Saudi family have visited the US (the Taliban to work through building a gas pipe through *cant remember the name of the country*, Saudi families to meet with Bush - such as "Bandar Bush".) So it seemed that the US had good relationships with the Saudi family members, of which bin Laden was a member. So up to my knowledge, they had no reason to attack Afghanistan before 9/11. I could be wrong though, so don't take my word for it :lol:
 
Back
Top