GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   If you think 9/11 was an inside job, get in here (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=780993)

Snake Doctor 10-31-2007 01:47 PM
If you think 9/11 was an inside job, get in here
 
http://www.amateurcleavage.com/gfy/helmet.jpg

Profits of Doom 10-31-2007 01:54 PM
Click here for my response...

http://www.gfy.com/13312759-post37.html

2012 10-31-2007 01:56 PM
tune in tokyo

ronaldo 10-31-2007 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profits of Doom (Post 13312759)
I'm no sheep. I read alternative news blogs with three other readers that have the real pictures and videos of what happened that day on 9/11. You see, right before the first plane hits the tower you can see a gargoyle on it's wings sabotaging the engines. Didn't you see Twilight Zone The Movie, man? It's a fucking gargoyle conspiracy. You sheep are just sucking on the government cock, choking down the government semen because that is what they feed you. Not me, man. I am enlightened, mmmaaannn!!!
lol, that's probably more likely to happen than what some people are trying to suggest DID happen.

Xplicit 10-31-2007 03:15 PM
So for those who trust Bush & Friends please tell me how they would accomplish their goals in the middle east without 9/11 happening?

You're saying it all just worked out perfectly by chance?

Xplicit 10-31-2007 03:19 PM
BTW, the additude of the Bush lovers seems to be...

"The government wouldn't try something that crazy."

CORRECTION: You mean the government wouldn't try something that crazy....again.

Quote:
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of simulated or real terrorism and violence on US soil or against US interests, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
You guys are such pathetic suckers. Keep voting for your Hillary's, Bush's and Guliani's.

L-Pink 10-31-2007 03:20 PM
I think an inside job is impossible .... I would however like a better explination of the building #7 deal.

Project Manager 10-31-2007 08:54 PM
Inside job? BS.

I am not a fan of our previous President, but I agree 1000% with him when he told the idiot who brought it up: 'How dare you?'

DaddyHalbucks 10-31-2007 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xplicit (Post 13313699)
So for those who trust Bush & Friends please tell me how they would accomplish their goals in the middle east without 9/11 happening?

You're saying it all just worked out perfectly by chance?
If you look at Islamic fascism, there have been lots of attacks over the past 30 years, culminating with 9/11. 9/11 wasn't a starting point, and it won't be the last attack, unfortunately.

:(

sortie 10-31-2007 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 13313718)
I think an inside job is impossible .... I would however like a better explination of the building #7 deal.
I agree that an inside job is just beyond reason.
Yet I am still open to some explanation of how the top 10-15 floors collpased on the twin towers and brought the whole thing down but the rubble from the towers that fell 100 stories could not bring down the buildings next to it, yet building 7 fell down too.

I can only say that if I had just acquired the WTC I would be worried about terrorism since it already happened before and it might be a shrewd person to make sure that if an attack happened they would take advantage of it by making sure they weren't stuck with a "damaged" building that couldn't be used and the insurance wouldn't pay enough to make it useable.
The old "if I get into a wreck, this shit has to be totaled" thing.

That wouldn't be an "inside job" but it would still be significant and heinous.

Rochard 10-31-2007 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xplicit (Post 13313699)
So for those who trust Bush & Friends please tell me how they would accomplish their goals in the middle east without 9/11 happening?

You're saying it all just worked out perfectly by chance?
Your on durgs. Iraq invaded Kuwait - giving the US reasons plenty to go in, kick ass, mock their military, embarress the fuck out of them, and remove Saddam. However, the US had no reason to remove their goverment from power or take over this country. So we were nice about it, removed them from Kuwait, and went home.

Then for the next ten years they continued to take shots at us. Again, more than enough reason for us to move in clean house. We did nothing.

This is so simple you can break it down like the middle high playground. If your neighbor keeps throwing rocks and breaks your windows, you'll call the police the first three times. Then for a while you just put up with it. After he breaks your window for the 40th time, well, your going over there with a baseball bat and breaking every fucking window in his house. This is very fucking simple kids - Iraq fired missiles for ten at our multi million dollar war planes and we sat here and did nothing.

Don't give me the argument that "The US encouraged Iraq to invade Kuwait". That's a line of bull. The US doesn't encourage countries to invade countries that our our allies. Even if it was possible - because we wanted to go to war with Iraq - why didn't we drive all the way into Baddad? That whole line of bullshit makes no sense.

yahoo-xxx-girls.com 10-31-2007 09:20 PM
Is it not within the same logic as to ask the MIB if they were behind 911 ???

^^

.

DaddyHalbucks 10-31-2007 09:26 PM
Nova has a great documentary on the collapse of the towers.

The trusses were not designed to take the heat. If you watch it frame by frame, you can actually see the moment and point where the trusses fail.

Snake Doctor 10-31-2007 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xplicit (Post 13313699)
So for those who trust Bush & Friends please tell me how they would accomplish their goals in the middle east without 9/11 happening?

You're saying it all just worked out perfectly by chance?
The last time I checked they hadn't accomplished their goals in the middle east, they're failing miserably.
They saw 9/11 as an opportunity to do things they wanted to do, but that doesn't mean they were the ones who blew up the buildings. That would be like saying the people who wanted the US to get involved in WWII launched the attack on pearl harbor, it wasn't really the Japanese who did it.

Also, for things to "work out perfectly" as you put it, we would have had to find WMD in Iraq, preferably a nuclear program.....but we didn't.
So how is it our gov't is cunning and sinister enough to kill 3000 of our own citizens with a controlled demolition that looked like it was caused by a plane crash, but too stupid to plant evidence in a desert?

L-Pink 10-31-2007 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 13315124)
Don't give me the argument that "The US encouraged Iraq to invade Kuwait". That's a line of bull. The US doesn't encourage countries to invade countries that our our allies. Even if it was possible - because we wanted to go to war with Iraq - why didn't we drive all the way into Baddad? That whole line of bullshit makes no sense.
We could however make better picks for our Secretary of State. I really think sending Madeleine Albright (female/jew) to deal with middle east tensions sent the wrong message.

DaddyHalbucks 10-31-2007 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 13315124)
Your on durgs. Iraq invaded Kuwait - giving the US reasons plenty to go in, kick ass, mock their military, embarress the fuck out of them, and remove Saddam. However, the US had no reason to remove their goverment from power or take over this country. So we were nice about it, removed them from Kuwait, and went home.

Then for the next ten years they continued to take shots at us. Again, more than enough reason for us to move in clean house. We did nothing.

This is so simple you can break it down like the middle high playground. If your neighbor keeps throwing rocks and breaks your windows, you'll call the police the first three times. Then for a while you just put up with it. After he breaks your window for the 40th time, well, your going over there with a baseball bat and breaking every fucking window in his house. This is very fucking simple kids - Iraq fired missiles for ten at our multi million dollar war planes and we sat here and did nothing.

Don't give me the argument that "The US encouraged Iraq to invade Kuwait". That's a line of bull. The US doesn't encourage countries to invade countries that our our allies. Even if it was possible - because we wanted to go to war with Iraq - why didn't we drive all the way into Baddad? That whole line of bullshit makes no sense.
Yes, but you forgot a few items:

1. Iraq trying to assasinate a US President.

2. Iraq using chemical weapons against civilians at Halabja in 1988.

3. Iraq establishing a massive program to acquire and hide WMD, some of which were buried, some sent to Syria, and some still unaccounted for.

4. Iraq playing games with the UN weapons inspectors and defying the UN for 11 years.

GreyWolf 10-31-2007 09:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks (Post 13315101)
If you look at US fascism, there have been lots of attacks over the past 30 years, culminating with Iraq. Iraq wasn't a starting point, and it won't be the last attack, unfortunately.
:(
:winkwink: So true... and this is how it plays out...

Quote:
The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to avenge the American "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend" following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.

One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism. The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.
As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." How has this grand strategy been implemented? A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.

On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.

Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities'", which she compared with those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war. Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary". Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.

In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists".
Needless to say, that 'piece' was never published in the US, but by a number of major international press corps. The author is an award-winning journalist with more balls than *any* current US journalist (other than foreign contractors) and has personal (closeup) contact with prime players ever since Vietnam.

Now.. decribe it as.. whatever... liberal blah blah or communist leanings so I can laugh my head off - again *LOL*

GreyWolf 10-31-2007 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks (Post 13315157)
Yes, but you forgot a few items:

1. Iraq trying to assasinate a US President.

2. Iraq using chemical weapons against civilians at Halabja in 1988.

3. Iraq establishing a massive program to acquire and hide WMD, some of which were buried, some sent to Syria, and some still unaccounted for.

4. Iraq playing games with the UN weapons inspectors and defying the UN for 11 years.
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

These damned WMD's are still in hiding - they went to Syria now? You said before they were buried in a riverbed or flown out to Sudan???? :1orglaugh

Who provided chemical weapons to Iraq??? Daffy Duck? The US did!! :1orglaugh

Oh... playing games with UN weapons inspectors is serious shit *lol* BUT.. What the fuck has it got to do with you???????? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

donkevlar 10-31-2007 09:44 PM
top 40 reasons to doubt the official story: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41221155307646

L-Pink 10-31-2007 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by donkevlar (Post 13315189)
top 40 reasons to doubt the official story: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41221155307646
Here we go, FRANCK!

Kevsh 10-31-2007 10:09 PM
Here we go ....

Okay, simple question for the conspiracy believers: Where's your smoking gun?

The one thing you all have in common is great skill in showing inconsistencies, oddities and it-couldn't-happen-like-that theories but where is ANY proof of ANY individual responsible in the planning, coordinating, implementing what no one can doubt would have been an almost impossibly difficult plan, involving hundreds of people, to carry out and cover up?

Name one person. Just one ... Oh, and please provide some credible evidence to substantiate your claim(s).

GreyWolf 10-31-2007 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 13315124)
Then for the next ten years they continued to take shots at us. Again, more than enough reason for us to move in clean house.
Oh shit... is your nation seriously as dumb as you???? It's *very* hard to believe that, but with the element of total retards displaying their total ignorance (or trying very hard to justify constant fuckups) - ya can't help but wonder - just a tiny bit :winkwink:

Note... and read very slowly - "us" as in presumably the US, had no legitimate reason to ever be flying over airspace of any other nation, than by agreement.

"We" had no fucking agreement or any "rights" to be there. "We" should have been shot down by using warplanes to enter the airspace of another nation - consider your ass very lucky.

"We" have no rights to "clean" any house - other than your own. It may be a clue to start cleaning your house now - it is seriously causing a severe stench.

Enjoy your regime while it lasts and have a nice day :1orglaugh:thumbsup

EonBlue 10-31-2007 10:26 PM
The conspiracy theorists who hate Bush are in a tough spot. If Bush actually planned and pulled off this conspiracy without getting caught then that makes him the greatest evil genius who ever lived. :1orglaugh

EonBlue 10-31-2007 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyWolf
Who provided chemical weapons to Iraq??? Daffy Duck? The US did!! :1orglaugh
Actually Iraq received chemical weapons capabilities from a number of countries including France, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Singapore, India, China and Luxembourg.

GreyWolf 11-01-2007 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EonBlue (Post 13315375)
Actually Iraq received chemical weapons capabilities from a number of countries including France, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Singapore, India, China and Luxembourg.
Got not one doubt of that EB :) Arms and WMD trading is profitable and the scum engaged in that activity have no moral fibre, but only one interest - how to earn that extra dime while telling tales of "defense" in their "marketing materials" :thumbsup

Would equally condemn the govt of my own country for their role and in the disgusting conduct in the X years after the Gulf war where they played a role along with the world's main arms trader and WMD exporter, the US. There are very few clean hands and any claims of being clean are lies :disgust

Kiopa_Matt 11-01-2007 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xplicit (Post 13313699)
You're saying it all just worked out perfectly by chance?
Exactly! :thumbsup

The FBI are such great investigators, they even had a handy little list of terrorists to blame about 16 hours after the attacks. Pictures of them all organized on a little card, and everything. That's some handy detective work. :1orglaugh

Then the govt must have worked 120 hours a day on that Patriot Act, because they had that thing before congress right quick. Oh, and the good ole propaganda machine was even all geared up, and ready to go.

heh, it was such a fucken story book read to us for years, I can't believe some people actually still believe it. Then again, there's people who think Iran needs to be invaded, so not much surprises me. I guess some people are just born without the ability to think for themselves. :disgust

ronaldo 11-01-2007 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevsh (Post 13315272)
Here we go ....

Okay, simple question for the conspiracy believers: Where's your smoking gun?

The one thing you all have in common is great skill in showing inconsistencies, oddities and it-couldn't-happen-like-that theories but where is ANY proof of ANY individual responsible in the planning, coordinating, implementing what no one can doubt would have been an almost impossibly difficult plan, involving hundreds of people, to carry out and cover up?

Name one person. Just one ... Oh, and please provide some credible evidence to substantiate your claim(s).
Bah. Inconsistencies a conspiracy do make.

However, when you point out the inconsistencies in THEIR theories, you're ignored and/or flooded with MORE theories, called a sheep or a Bush lover, or my favorite...told the inconsistencies you pointed out in THEIR theory only help PROVE their theory even more.

tblake 11-01-2007 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevsh (Post 13315272)
Here we go ....

Okay, simple question for the conspiracy believers: Where's your smoking gun?
I think that the flight that hit the pentagon is EXTREMELY fishy. Have you looked at photographs of the wreckage? I find it very hard to believe that a 747 did that damage and left no large pieces of plane behind. It looks more like a hole as opposed to an entire plane. Also several video cameras that recorded the event had their tapes immediately confiscated, and they have never been released to the public.

Now this does NOT mean there is some crazy conspiracy new world order shit going on with Bush. Even if that is true you cannot just make up some wild ass theory about what it means that the official story is BS. It could even be for a good cause, like maybe some other government hit the pentagon with a missile and we covered it up quickly so as to ease a massive panic before it started. Again it is impossible to say.

I do think that pentagon strike reeks to high hell. Similar to the JFK assassination or the Bobby assassination- something is just not right with the official story.

buzzy 11-01-2007 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 13315124)
Your on durgs. Iraq invaded Kuwait - giving the US reasons plenty to go in, kick ass, mock their military, embarress the fuck out of them, and remove Saddam. However, the US had no reason to remove their goverment from power or take over this country. So we were nice about it, removed them from Kuwait, and went home.

Then for the next ten years they continued to take shots at us. Again, more than enough reason for us to move in clean house. We did nothing.

This is so simple you can break it down like the middle high playground. If your neighbor keeps throwing rocks and breaks your windows, you'll call the police the first three times. Then for a while you just put up with it. After he breaks your window for the 40th time, well, your going over there with a baseball bat and breaking every fucking window in his house. This is very fucking simple kids - Iraq fired missiles for ten at our multi million dollar war planes and we sat here and did nothing.

Don't give me the argument that "The US encouraged Iraq to invade Kuwait". That's a line of bull. The US doesn't encourage countries to invade countries that our our allies. Even if it was possible - because we wanted to go to war with Iraq - why didn't we drive all the way into Baddad? That whole line of bullshit makes no sense.

you're a fucking idiot, kuwait was stealing iraqs oil so they had every right to invade.

theking 11-01-2007 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyWolf (Post 13315283)
Oh shit... is your nation seriously as dumb as you???? It's *very* hard to believe that, but with the element of total retards displaying their total ignorance (or trying very hard to justify constant fuckups) - ya can't help but wonder - just a tiny bit :winkwink:

Note... and read very slowly - "us" as in presumably the US, had no legitimate reason to ever be flying over airspace of any other nation, than by agreement.

"We" had no fucking agreement or any "rights" to be there. "We" should have been shot down by using warplanes to enter the airspace of another nation - consider your ass very lucky.

"We" have no rights to "clean" any house - other than your own. It may be a clue to start cleaning your house now - it is seriously causing a severe stench.

Enjoy your regime while it lasts and have a nice day :1orglaugh:thumbsup
More blah...blah...blah...pigshit.

theking 11-01-2007 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzy (Post 13318382)
you're a fucking idiot, kuwait was stealing iraqs oil so they had every right to invade.
Show the proof...please.

Dollarmansteve 11-01-2007 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tblake (Post 13318370)
I think that the flight that hit the pentagon is EXTREMELY fishy. Have you looked at photographs of the wreckage? I find it very hard to believe that a 747 did that damage and left no large pieces of plane behind. It looks more like a hole as opposed to an entire plane. Also several video cameras that recorded the event had their tapes immediately confiscated, and they have never been released to the public.

Now this does NOT mean there is some crazy conspiracy new world order shit going on with Bush. Even if that is true you cannot just make up some wild ass theory about what it means that the official story is BS. It could even be for a good cause, like maybe some other government hit the pentagon with a missile and we covered it up quickly so as to ease a massive panic before it started. Again it is impossible to say.

I do think that pentagon strike reeks to high hell. Similar to the JFK assassination or the Bobby assassination- something is just not right with the official story.
a) it was a 767, not a 747
b) there are lots of bug chunks of landing gear, engine parts, etc
c) the skin of an airplane is relatively thin aluminum sheeting that is readily vaporized from the energy created when an airplane hits an immoveable object at 500mph
d) the logical leap of "there were confiscated tapes that have never been made public" implying that something other than a plane hit the pentagon is quite irrational - especially given the evidence to support the 'theory' that it was a plane. The burden of proof is on the person who says the pentagon was 'fishy' because the 'official story' has soe pretty good eveidence - a missing airplane and a bunch of dead people.. and 3 other example of hijacked planes crashing into immoveable objects or the ground on that day.

Quite simply - you have to ignore all the FACTS to believe anything other than flight 77 hitting the pentagon. There are hundreds of eye witnesses, a missing airplane, dead people, photos, etc, etc, etc, etc... to ignore these facts or explain them away is not sane and is for entertainment purposes only.

buzzy 11-01-2007 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking (Post 13318415)
Show the proof...please.
proof? Google it, its a known fact. apart from dumbass americans who know nothing about outside their own country.

Shok 11-01-2007 03:19 PM
oh shit it's true!!!!!!!







http://www.shawinternet.com/shok/burgerface.jpg

Shok 11-01-2007 03:19 PM
dear buzzy







cum closer








you are an idiot, thanks for playing

theking 11-01-2007 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzy (Post 13318429)
proof? Google it, its a known fact. apart from dumbass americans who know nothing about outside their own country.
No...it is not a known fact. What is a known fact is that Saddam made the claim after Kuwait pissed him off.

GreyWolf 11-01-2007 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzy (Post 13318429)
proof? Google it, its a known fact. apart from dumbass americans who know nothing about outside their own country.
Pandering to a dumbass was always a total waste of time buzzy. There is no reason to believe this is not a dumbass and a purveyor of fantasy :thumbsup

But.. for entertainment value... that's another story :pimp Make a post which says "milk comes from cows" and you are sure to get "proof?", "goats produce milk" and of course, "pigshit" - which does not come from cows *lol*

But even that can get boring....

Malicious Biz 11-01-2007 03:34 PM

GreyWolf 11-01-2007 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking (Post 13318489)
No...it is not a known fact. What is a known fact is that Saddam made the claim after Kuwait pissed him off.
You are talking about "known facts"?? Since when??

You are the dumbo making claims that US mercenaries in Iraq (Blackwater etc) were accountable under the UCMJ :1orglaugh What a joke!

buzzy 11-01-2007 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking (Post 13318489)
No...it is not a known fact. What is a known fact is that Saddam made the claim after Kuwait pissed him off.
LOL..........

yahoo-xxx-girls.com 11-01-2007 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shok (Post 13318475)
dear buzzy







cum closer







you are an idiot, thanks for playing

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Bump... ^^

theking 11-01-2007 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzy (Post 13318566)
LOL..........
Kuwait refused financial assistance to Saddam for the expense of the Iran war...then he made the claim. That is fact.

theking 11-01-2007 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyWolf (Post 13318556)
You are talking about "known facts"?? Since when??

You are the dumbo making claims that US mercenaries in Iraq (Blackwater etc) were accountable under the UCMJ :1orglaugh What a joke!
They are not mercs and they are accountable under the USMJ in certain circumstances and they are accountable to the Justice Department and are currently under investigation by the Justice Deparatment. Fact.

buzzy 11-01-2007 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking (Post 13318603)
Kuwait refused financial assistance to Saddam for the expense of the Iran war...then he made the claim. That is fact.
LMAO. You are such a RETARD!

Kuwait heavily funded the WHOLE WAR ON IRAQ'S SIDE.

theking 11-01-2007 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzy (Post 13318667)
LMAO. You are such a RETARD!

Kuwait heavily funded the WHOLE WAR ON IRAQ'S SIDE.
After the war ended he demanded financial assistance and Kuwait refused...he then made the claim...fact.

buzzy 11-01-2007 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking (Post 13318687)
After the war ended he demanded financial assistance and Kuwait refused...he then made the claim...fact.
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh Things you make up on the spot don't count as fact.:error

GreyWolf 11-01-2007 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking (Post 13318624)
They are not mercs and they are accountable under the USMJ in certain circumstances and they are accountable to the Justice Department and are currently under investigation by the Justice Deparatment. Fact.
How much of a dumbass are you? I call them "mercenaries" - don't give a shit what a lying, torture regime, terrorist govt calls them.

What's with the attempted excuse about "certain circumstances" next??? :1orglaugh Mercenaries do not come under the UCMJ - hell, even the govt have no clue.

They are accountable to the Iraq goverment first where the alleged offenses were committed - not some asshole DOJ in Washington who do not matter a toss to the planet. Quick trial in Baghdad and all convicted can be hanged - preferably will full photo coverage for CNN as a demonstration on how to deal with terrorists :1orglaugh :thumbsup


PS Are the scum who raped and murdered kids still walking in the land of the free after having been convicted of murder??? Of course. That's what happens in a corrupt regime.

theking 11-01-2007 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyWolf (Post 13318702)
How much of a dumbass are you? I call them "mercenaries" - don't give a shit what a lying, torture regime, terrorist govt calls them.

What's with the attempted excuse about "certain circumstances" next??? :1orglaugh Mercenaries do not come under the UCMJ - hell, even the govt have no clue.

They are accountable to the Iraq goverment first where the alleged offenses were committed - not some asshole DOJ in Washington who do not matter a toss to the planet. Quick trial in Baghdad and all convicted can be hanged - preferably will full photo coverage for CNN as a demonstration on how to deal with terrorists :1orglaugh :thumbsup


PS Are the scum who raped and murdered kids still walking in the land of the free after having been convicted of murder??? Of course. That's what happens in a corrupt regime.
Blah...blah...blah...pigshit. I watched the entire congressional hearing on this matter with the CEO of Blackwater being the one testifying. And no they are not accountable to Iraqi law but Iraq is currently attempting to change this.

BTW...just a reminder that Blackwater is but one of more than 100 security firms being contracted out in Iraq.

Xplicit 11-01-2007 04:35 PM
RECENT ARTICLE: Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report – Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up"

http://www.PatriotsQuestion911.com

Yes, those tinfoil nut CIA agents.

Right up there with those other nuts like Robert Bowman who headed the secret 'starwars' space defense under Presidents Ford and Carter (His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security). ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65571556128674 )

Yeah, another tinfoil nut right?

And the 200+ architechs and engineers on the record stating it was a controled demolition ( Architechs & Engineers for 9/11 truth http://www.ae911truth.org/ )


You people are fucking SUCKERS for believing Bush over the sources i've listed above.

Fucking pathetic idiots.

GreyWolf 11-01-2007 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking (Post 13318718)
Blah...blah...blah...pigshit. I watched the entire congressional hearing on this matter with the CEO of Blackwater being the one testifying. And no they are not accountable to Iraqi law but Iraq is currently attempting to change this.
So, you are now claiming or suggesting that the CEO of Blackwater 'testified' to idiots that his employees fall under the UCMJ????? Sorry - try another excuse :1orglaugh

Do you realise how pathetic and irrelvant your "congressional hearings" are??? They do not matter to anyone other than dumbasses. Your domestic govt game-playing has no relevance to anyone else or Iraq.

You are talking about a corrupt regime pandering a face of "democracy" and other fine virtues in an attempt to be "respectable" while being totally useless to those who elected them. The same idiots elected to invade Iraq in the first place - tho they had no clue and still don't.

Any testimony by a Blackwater CEO is not even worth a dime and would never stand up in any court other than as secondary support evidence (if he could even provide that secondary evidence). It's a farce for public consumption from the best democracy money can buy - nothing more.

Seriously - as a group, never seen a more incompetent load of wankers ever. If they were on the board of a corp - they'd drive it into the ground and financial oblivion. Unfortunately, that is an area they are having some success on.

You are correct re Iraqi law - the sooner this is enabled and retrospectively implemented, the better. By that time, unless by magic, they are arrested and detained, - they will never set foot in Iraq territory again. Little compensation for families of those murdered to know, as in the child rape and murders, they will never have any justice served in the US.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123