Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
"Bin Laden was never part of 9/11 you fucking idiot. There is absolutely no evidence to support he was."
None of them "proves" it to you, because an authenticated video taped confession by OBL would not convince you. That's why you changed what you posted.
The next thing you'll post is he didn't fly a plane into a building that day!
If you are going to assert "conspiracy theories" at least quit changing your "theories" as each one is proven bullshit.
Iam far from wrong. I know more about this subject than you do. What the MSM media presents to us is all theater. It's bullshit. Osama Bin Laden was nothing more than a tool.
I am far from wrong. I know more about this subject than you do.
Jim
And you believe that because .....
... or is it that you don't "believe it" but merely want to appear as though you are more personally knowledgeable .... based on your vast experience in international law enforcement?
Weren't you also "the one" trying to sell the moon landing was staged?
A "problem" with your comparative self-analysis is that you would first have to know what I don't know or could not know. And you don't! So there's where it fails! As for your credibility.
I'm equally satisfied from direct information that the moon landing was REAL!
the racist conservative right is quick to say well Obama just gave the order and anyone can give an order. The fact is that had he been wrong there would have been significant blow back for carrying out a secret mission by ignoring international borders with a Nation you're not at war with and killing some of it's civilians en-route to going after Bin Laden. Being wrong would have ended his Presidency and he would have went down in history in disgrace. He gambled his entire political life on it with a 50/50 chance and Obama gambled right.
My point is that giving the order is never easy (the hardest thing to do) and could mean disastrous consequences if you're wrong. So Obama giving the order meant that he was the MAN and the soldiers faithfully carried out their mission with no US service men getting killed that night. Obama proved (for this history books) to be an amazing Peaceful / War time Commander.
Here's a good example. Consider me as Denzel in this clip with I B Lying. COG, DSK, or Mojo Rice, etc playing the role of the General (Bruce Willis)
Have you been mentally evaluated lately? Comparing yourself to Denzel playing a role? You want forget about the years of prep work by Bush, the U.S. navy, and the individual SEALs themselves. That's what you're doing. If you acknowledge the individual valor of each sailor then you must acknowledge what Bush did to make it possible. If not, you live in a fantasy world where Obama puts on a cape.
... or is it that you don't "believe it" but merely want to appear as though you are more personally knowledgeable .... based on your vast experience in international law enforcement?
Weren't you also "the one" trying to sell the moon landing was staged?
A "problem" with your comparative self-analysis is that you would first have to know what I don't know or could not know. And you don't! So there's where it fails! As for your credibility.
I'm equally satisfied from direct information that the moon landing was REAL!
It's quite obvious you are perfectly satisfied with the official narrative no matter how flawed it is. The Government is quite skilled in giving out information designed for you to believe and never question. When independent investigations find conflicting information based on Science, Technology, Medical ect. The Government and the MSM immediately accuse any information contrary to theirs as a conspiracy. The truth will always be stifled by those in power.
It's quite obvious you are perfectly satisfied with the official narrative no matter how flawed it is. The Government is quite skilled in giving out information designed for you to believe and never question. When independent investigations find conflicting information based on Science, Technology, Medical ect. The Government and the MSM immediately accuse any information contrary to theirs as a conspiracy. The truth will always be stifled by those in power.
Jim
You still didn't answer the question YOU RAISED ....
Quote:
:
Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin View Post I am far from wrong. I know more about this subject than you do.
Jim
And I asked you .....
And you believe that because ....???.
Your "because" is not factually supported by anything, but your "assumptions" and "suppositions" ... not only about me, but about a lot of others. And on that score and basis you are WRONG about your "beliefs" and you are wrong about me!
You don't know from where I get information. You only assume.
You seem to dwell on "government conspiracies" and "suspicions" ... to an unhealthy level that could develop into some permanent delusions causing your perception of the world to be distorted.
You still didn't answer the question YOU RAISED ....
And I asked you .....
And you believe that because ....???.
Your "because" is not factually supported by anything, but your "assumptions" and "suppositions" ... not only about me, but about a lot of others. And on that score and basis you are WRONG about your "beliefs" and you are wrong about me!
You don't know from where I get information. You only assume.
You seem to dwell on "government conspiracies" and "suspicions" ... to an unhealthy level that could develop into some permanent delusions causing your perception of the world to be distorted.
I do my own research and read other people's research when I feel an official narrative is being misrepresented through the media. In the case of Bin Laden's involvement in 9-11 and the story of his death by Navy seals in 2011there is some obvious conflicts between the official narratives and other outside accounts of Bin Laden's health during that time. The link below illustrates that Bin Laden was in a hospital in 2001 suffering from a terminal kidney disease it was later reported he had died in December of 2001 from his illness. So if that is indeed true Bin Laden could not have been the mastermind of 9-11 nor could he have been killed by Navy Seals in 2011.
I do my own research and read other people's research when I feel an official narrative is being misrepresented through the media. In the case of Bin Laden's involvement in 9-11 and the story of his death by Navy seals in 2011there is some obvious conflicts between the official narratives and other outside accounts of Bin Laden's health during that time. The link below illustrates that Bin Laden was in a hospital in 2001 suffering from a terminal kidney disease it was later reported he had died in December of 2001 from his illness. So if that is indeed true Bin Laden could not have been the mastermind of 9-11 nor could he have been killed by Navy Seals in 2011.
your post has one fatal flaw. while i do not discount Bin Ladin could have died of kidney failure in Pakistan in December 2001, he easily could have set in motion the events of Sept 9/11. there's a two month gap. and this was planned well in advance.
there was no "conspiracy" by the US Government on 9/11. it was orchestrated by the Saudis. that is what the 28 pages that have until recently never been released show. it implicated the Saudis which i have contended for years. why would the Saudis do this?
it's easy to see why. they knew G Dubya would overreact .. and he did. but this is also what the US population wanted. and Congress.. and the Senate.. including Hillary Clinton. they all approved G Dubya to set the Middle East on fire.
what did this gain the Saudis? we destroyed their mortal enemy, Iraq .. without the Saudis lifting a finger. we did it for them.
they underestimated Iran. the Saudis thought they could then control Iraq and turn them to a Wahhabi state. Iran fucked them over.
was there WMD's in Iraq? absolutely. this is known FACT. they had used WMD's against Iran in their 1980's war. and against Iraqi Kurd's.
they hid them before the well telegraphed invasion. too easy. we still found more than enough evidence that they had them. Bush would have been better off by saying "Saddam is a bad guy and we are going to take him out" rather than claiming they had anything to do with 9/11 ( they didn't)
it was Obama who fucked up the Middle East. by design. on purpose. because he's a Muslim. he wanted anarchy in the Middle East and he go it. all he had to do was keep strike forces in the region to head off anarchy in Iraq. he did not. on purpose. he left the region melt down into conflict. he wanted it. he is a traitor to US interests in the region.
you are just upset that the pakis gave up their stooge Obama .. er .. Osama. he was being protected by the Pakistani Army .. until they decided that all that US Fed (fake false money loot) was worth enough to allow him to be betrayed.
have a fucking horrible day you miserable piece of shit
You going to rely on some he said she said to a reporter? Why did the helicopter fly under radar the whole trip if the Pakastani generals knew about it? There would be no need to fly under radar in Pakistan if they knew that Pakistan was not going to attack. Or did CBS 60 minutes make up the flying under radar the whole trip for good television. The show that the guy from Navy Seal team 6 who wrote the book.
From your link:
The most blatant lie was that Pakistan’s two most senior military leaders – General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, chief of the army staff, and General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director general of the ISI – were never informed of the US mission. This remains the White House position despite an array of reports that have raised questions, including one by Carlotta Gall in the New York Times Magazine of 19 March 2014. Gall, who spent 12 years as the Times correspondent in Afghanistan, wrote that she’d been told by a ‘Pakistani official’ that Pasha had known before the raid that bin Laden was in Abbottabad. The story was denied by US and Pakistani officials, and went no further.
What the MSM media presents to us is all theater. It's bullshit. Osama Bin Laden was nothing more than a tool.
Jim
Is that why Bush43 had a State of the Union address dedicated to who OBL was? Did the Saudi royals pay the rent of some of the flyers? Or is that fiction too?
...what did this gain the Saudis? we destroyed their mortal enemy, Iraq .. without the Saudis lifting a finger. we did it for them.
they underestimated Iran. the Saudis thought they could then control Iraq and turn them to a Wahhabi state. Iran fucked them over.
Saddam was not a mortal enemy of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis had a complicated relationship with him. Saddam was a Sunni like them. He kept Sunnis in power in Baghdad. During his 1980-88 war against Shiite Iran, he borrowed a lot of money from the Saudis and Kuwaitis. They loaned it to him because they hate Shiites. They wanted Iran to win.
Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 because he was exasperated with Kuwaiti demands for repayment of those 1980-88 war debts. Saddam wanted to bring the Royal House of al-Sabah to heel and forcibly take over Kuwait's oil fields. He tried to justify his takeover by invoking centuries-old territorial claims. He never thought the US would respond as we did under George H.W. Bush.
Today Shiites (2/3 of the population) are running Iraq. We should have anticipated that installing democracy there was bound to result in a transfer of power to the Shiite majority. Once we invaded, we should have stayed long enough to keep them from descending into sectarian chaos. By withdrawing prematurely in 2011, Obama created the vacuum that allowed ISIS to take over Mosul and produced the chaos we see today.
was there WMD's in Iraq? absolutely. this is known FACT. they had used WMD's against Iran in their 1980's war. and against Iraqi Kurd's.
they hid them before the well telegraphed invasion. too easy. we still found more than enough evidence that they had them.
Yes, they had WMD's. They were designed by and purchased from the USA and installed on Iraqi soil by American companies. It's in a New York times link that is in several posts. Bush43 spent 2 Trillion to go find these weapons and we are still paying for that.
Today Shiites (2/3 of the population) are running Iraq. We should have anticipated that installing democracy there was bound to result in a transfer of power to the Shiite majority. Once we invaded, we should have stayed long enough to keep them from descending into sectarian chaos. By withdrawing prematurely in 2011, Obama created the vacuum that allowed ISIS to take over Mosul and produced the chaos we see today.
I agree with what you wrote up to the last paragraph.
Al- Malachi got the government that he wanted. The chaos resulted because the Kurds were only sect strong enough to protect themselves from ISIS. The coalition forces have improved with some consulting and direction from our guys. The coalition forces just won control of Fallajah, a key city about month ago. They have recovered over 45% of the territory that was controlled by ISIS since January 2016. The next battle will be for Mosul. Our soldiers do not have a combat role.
Have at it, COG. Those 28 pages that had been withheld from the original 9/11 Commission report were declassified and released a few weeks ago. Learn anything new?
Well, much of it was still redacted, but what was left exposed significant Saudi involvement. And that still doesn't downplay the 9-11 Commission's complaints that they were not allowed access to all the information they needed. Max Cleland resigned from the commission because he thought it was shit. Tim Kean hasn't changed his position that the report is incomplete. We still don't have the truth. You believe the report when those who wrote it don't.
The link below illustrates that Bin Laden was in a hospital in 2001 suffering from a terminal kidney disease it was later reported he had died in December of 2001 from his illness. So if that is indeed true Bin Laden could not have been the mastermind of 9-11 nor could he have been killed by Navy Seals in 2011.
Jim
So based on THAT you know more about it than I do?
If it is true that pigs have wings, then pigs can fly! So I know more about flying pigs than you do!!!! Please?????
The "taking down" of the WTC was a plot that began before 1993, when the first attempt failed, but managed to kill some people. That was real and persons involved (not all) were apprehended. The plan for the second attempt to take down the WTC was begun 4-5 years BEFORE 2001. so "THE FACT" (if it is "A FACT") that OBL had kidney problems in 2001 has no bearing on whether or not he was involved in either attempt or both, whether he were a "master mind" or "just involved" AS YOU FIRST STATED.
Secondly, "kidney problems" are not "terminal" per se ... there are a number of reasons ... we have two of them, they can be treated, they can be replaced, and there is dialysis.
Thirdly, none of the above PROVES you know more about the topic than I! And that was the trust of my question. You focus on the "conspiracy" and anecdotal stories that are not relevant to whether or not he was involved in the financing or planning of the ATTACKS ON THE WTC ... in 1993 and 2001.
