NO!
The Bin laden family are construction/civil engineeringQuote:
Bush has oil connections with the bin ladens
A fundamental error?
Printable View
NO!
The Bin laden family are construction/civil engineeringQuote:
Bush has oil connections with the bin ladens
A fundamental error?
Hi cider.
You are right every one is entitled to there opinions but if you post here you need to be ready to defend your position. :D I have seen the missile theory and for me it just doesn't wash. The terrorists had already hijacked a number of planes why complicate things with a missile strike?
The U.S. has been bombing Iraq since......Saddam's been in power, whether it's before or after CNN's "War In Iraq" is irrelevant.
Hhhmmm...these must all be part of some conspiracy, I wonder if Elvis is involved.....are you serious @tt!tud3??? I suppose these are fake???Quote:
Originally posted here by @tt!tud3
Does anyone have any proof a plane actually crashed into the pentagon??? noone has any photographs of any plane wreckage in or areound the building, and from what I am to understand many photographs were taken within the first 30 mins of the 'impact'
the whole 3 planes deal sounds like a real good story for mike moore.
what happened to the plane that went down in the field? noone talks about that either.
Flight 77 in the Pentagon
There may not be many pictures of flight 93 in Pittsburgh, so then all of these people are in on the conspiracy as well???[sarcasm]We are all lying, really[/sarcasm].... :rolleyes:
As for those planes going into the towers, well they must be part of this conspiracy theory as well, actually they are still there, but are hidden behind a huge holograph of just air/space???
Of course Bush has oil connections with the bin ladens, they basically own saudi arabia. How do you plan on getting decent priced oil without them in the picture? Osama was a crazy son who was disowned by his family. Don't hold his actions against them, for that is utter ignorance.
And did you notice how much racial violence there was against arabs/muslims soon after 9/11? Ever think maybe Bush didn't want the people he was making an oil deal with for the country to not get rocks thrown at their cars? hmmm.
Quote:
Originally posted here by MURACU
Hate to say it but the US is the only country to call terrorist’s attacks an act of war. For most other countries they are criminal acts. The important thing is you can’t go to war with a criminal organisation. War is a political act and as such, it needs a legitimate political opponent. Bush legitimised Al queada by declaring war on terrorism. Then again it means that the powers that be can keep the American public in a war mentality for as long as they want. Which is every politicians dream.
As for the rest of what was said both the allies and the axis during the second world war attacked soft targets such as cities to break enemy moral using the terror generated by bombing attacks. A couple of examples Cologne, Coventry, London ect.
Also take the American bombing raids of the 80's and 90's on different middle eastern cities. Were they terrorist attacks by the definitions given here or were they a legitimate political response?
Who here believes America is in a state of war? (Outside of Iraq that is.)
Is Bush a war time president?
If Bush is war time president doesn’t that mean that every president elected from now on will be a war president with all the powers that go with it?
Oh Nihil are you up early or late. 6AM post my time ouch.
(Emphasis mine) That's a good point - you can only really declare war on a sovereign nation, not a band of criminals or terrorists. I think the 'war on terror' is not a real war, that's why al Queda prisoners aren't worthy of protection under the Geneva convention. It wasn't so much a declaration of war as it was a declaration that they were going to be hunted down and killed as they should.
I'm not saying that a missile did hit the pentagon just stating what has been said. And yes the planes did hit the twin towers - not a conspiracy that they did hit however the reasons behind it. There are so many negatives going towards bush. His military record has been brought up - he never went to vietnam instead stayed @ home flying over texas -"defending Texas from invasion". However that is going off topic. The point is Bush attacked a nation (afgan, Iraq) which violates United nation clauses instead of going for the terrorists themselves. Did he accomplish anything? Not really but gaining more Oil Depots in Irag. This is an endless argument so both arguments wont be satisfied. Anyway I am really keen for your replies as history is my main hobby.
The Royal Family own Saudi...............the bin liners are an irrelevancy ;)Quote:
Of course Bush has oil connections with the bin ladens, they basically own saudi arabia.
Consider this one what if Bush didnt attack Iraq for the oil but because he was told to by the saudis? Consider that the only country that islam did not have a strangle hold on in the whole area was Iraq. Saudi arabia is more or less the center of the islamic faith. Saddam scared the **** out of them when he invaded Kuwait. Bush is a
Quote:
Originally posted here by nihil
The Royal Family own Saudi...............the bin liners are an irrelevancy ;)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family here.Quote:
The immensely rich bin Laden family, intimately connected with the innermost circles of the Saudi royal family was thrown into prominence through the activities of Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family own and operate a global corporation annually grossing 5 billion U.S. dollars, based upon the largest construction firm in the Islamic world, with offices in London and Geneva. [1]