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

It is about predicting. If you elect such a pesident, you gotta blame yourself partly. :D

So Bush blames Iraq for 9/11. But why does he even invade Afghanistan then. He thinks Iraq is responsible for 9/11. Why didn´t he convince people so, too?
 
No he told the people that he was going to attack Iraq becuase they have weapons of mass destruction. That was his main motive for attacking Iraq.
 
In response to your reply to my comments- fair enough. Of course I should have accepted that of course you have an agenda, othewise you wouldn't have started this thread, right? :lol:

I still think it ties back to perspective though. No offense, but you're coming from... Lebannon, isn't it? Clearly you have no love of the US, and understandably so. I do think it makes you a bit reactionary, however.

I live in Canada and I see how it works regularly in the US firsthand. Basically, Canada is (as the erudite Homer Simpson called us) "America Jr." :lol:

While you choose to believe that one man and his government would allow (or even plan) to have 3000 people in his country killed so that he could accomplish his agenda, I do not. As flawed as the system is, and as easily as it is circumvented, the checks and balances remain. I think the current battle Bush is having with his own members in the senate (GO SENATOR MCCAIN! I love that man! :) ) is a perfect example of how much he can't get away with. I mean the asshole basically wants to re-write the freaking Geneva Convention! Talk about unbelievable Hubris! Napolean had nothing on this guy! :p

I will thank you, however, for making me think about all of these issues once again... I've been ignoring them for far to long and it's shameful. It's nice to turn my brain on again! :)

Now, I'm going to throw you a bone: For your argument, maybe you should be touching upon the fact that during the events of 9/11 somebody ostensibly gave the Air Force carte blanche to shoot down any other passenger airliners that appeared to be highjacked. While the actual order never reached the Air Force pilots involved (thank god) the fact remains that either the President or the V.P gave the OK, although technically only the President holds the power to do that.

There you go. Run with it! ;)
 
He gave them his reasons for attacking Iraq, and the people already had enough reasons for him attacking Afghanistan. I have a feeling we're not gettin each other :lol:

What 2 motives do you see?
 
Baba,
I don´t see your connection between highjacked aircrafts and NWO. But, as you´re asking. I think you should not shoot down plans, possibly highjacked. Because what if the pilots have a heart-attack. That has nothing to do with terrorism.

Due to this you have to be surer that sure. Nevertheless I personally would even refuse shooting a definititly highjacked plan, as you´re killing innocent fellows.

Armed Sky-Marshalls avoid civil-victims. That woud be my solution.


Roka,
So Bush attacked Iraq for possesion of WMD. He never wanted to revenge 9/11 actually.
Afghanistan-war is only to let it seem as if? :eek:


okay my position:
We have two wars. Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq had nothin´ to do with 9/11!!

In Iraq we´ve have the search for WMD (comprising three gulf-wars up to now. :eek:)

Whereas in Afghanistan US Army look for Bin Laden, because (they think) he´s responsible for 9/11. And they chase him really - no fake or anything.
 
Detective_Burn said:

Baba,
I don´t see your connection between highjacked aircrafts and NWO. But, as you´re asking. I think you should not shoot down plans, possibly highjacked. Because what if the pilots have a heart-attack. That has nothing to do with terrorism.
Click to expand...

I'm talking specifically about the day of 9/11. The unofficial order was given (after the other planes had crashed) that any planes that were seemingly hijacked and heading towards Washington (I think it was Washington, specifically, but I'm not 100% on that one) were to be shot down. This would be more planes that carried innocent civilians. My point is that the President was willing to sacrifice all those people in order to prevent another suicide crash into another apparently key building. This issue was brought up in the post 9/11 senate hearings but the question of who actually OK'd this strategy was never truly answered. Was it the President or the Vice President who OK'd it?

My point was that this might be used to back up roka's theory that the President has no qualms about sacrificing people for his idea of the "greater good" whatever that may be.
 
I don´t think so. It´s difficult. You shoot a plane and kill the passengers.
But, let the plane crash into a housing estate...

This doubles victims, than you have not only the actual passangers. :(
 
I'm not actually asking if people agree with it. :lol: I was just adding this as a possible fact for roka's theories.

I'm pretty sure there aren't a lot of sane people out there who would condone such a thing.
 
Baba thank you for telling me about that, I must confess I had not even heard of it, but now I will do my research so thank you for mentioning it. There is something else that has troubled me for a while. How did the other plane manage to fly over the Pentagon without being shot down? It doesn't seem to go through my head, because I remember hearing a few years before the 9/11 incident, that a private plane had flown over the Pentagon and with all the equipment they have and the lasers that detect if any aircraft is above the building, they shot the plane down. So how they managed to miss the Boeing 757 that day is anybody's guess. Of course it all appeared staged anyway, take a look at this site.
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

And yeah, murder is bad. There is something else I'd like to bring to your attention. During Hurricane Katrina, much more could have been done to aid the victims, those dying on their roofs or starving to death on the streets. I doubt Katrina was worse than the Tsunamis that had hit Asia or the earthquakes in Pakistan... yet somehow, help managed to get to the Tsunami victims a whole lot quicker than it got to Katrina victims. FEMA was not doing its best, and I was watching an Oprah episode a few days ago where she personally donated 10 million dollars to build "Angel" street/avenue - something like that. Well they were giving 65 families new homes, and they showed us the tent park that they had all been living in during the months following Katrina. A short drive away was a FEMA trailor storage... loaded with empty trailors. People were living in TENTS while there were hundreds of empty trailors just parked in a huge lot. When Oprah's camera crew filmed it, they had called FEMA to ask why these trailors were not given to the people to live in, when most of them had less than a month to leave the tent, and had nowhere else to go. They could not give a valid answer, but mentioned that it was not as easy as it seems to give away trailors. But I'm just wondering how difficult it could be to give people a decent place to sleep? How much paperwork could it possibly be?
The government was capable of doing MUCH more for the people of the Gulf Coast, but they did not. After Katrina, I would not be surprised if anything worse happened that got an even harsher reaction.
 
Oh reactions to katrina were not favourable, that's for sure. The government and FEMA got blasted big time and continue to get blasted still. Nobody understands why the relief turned into such a fiasco. The FEMA director was fired shortly after the hurricane as well. George needed somebody to take the fall. :p
 
But he was praising him all throughout the first week of Katrina, saying that he was doing an excellent job. He obviously wasn't going to blame someone on his side.

Baba I never replied to something you wrote in a previous post about me being from Lebanon and that because you live in Canada you have a firsthand look at how creepy he is... Thing is, I only moved to Lebanon 3 years ago, I lived in New York my whole life, so I do have experience with this stuff, and I mean living in New York - even if you are an Arab or Muslim or whatever, you don't really feel the "anger" that someone living in the Middle East does. Its always just an outside thing, something we see on the news, I just always questioned everything Bush would say - so it was something I had before I came to Lebanon. Just wanted to clear that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top