Should Christains support the war in Afghanistan?

PDN

PDN wrote: »

So who do you think really did it then? The CIA, aliens, or Elvis?

It's an evil jew conspiracy dontcha know :rolleyes:

Awesome website though there ic, "only possed by"

lmaopml

PDN wrote: »

So who do you think really did it then? The CIA, aliens, or Elvis?

Ah I think we know who 'did' it....The mind boggling question is 'why they felt no other alternative to do something like what happened on that sickening day..'..

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I don't like being painted dumb either...There is a reason for everything that has been set in motion...Tackle the the reasons before they become evident in the loss of lives...

Personally, I don't believe there is a 'good guy' and 'bad guy'...I think there is a problem with corruption among those who are employed to talk, sort it out and not only sort it out but be reasonable and lend an ear to grievance..

The answer probably lies with what went on with Afghanistan before 9/11....and who was in control or fighting for it, or using it as a playground...

It's ****ed up! but at least some people do understand that it is...and would like to at least try to right any 'wrongs'....before defending our way of life from the 'baddies'...

I abhor the two faced way the west have interacted with the middle east, I know we need to be careful with fundamental fringes, but cripes - what the heck was that backlash all about? knowing that we have been there monitoring, supplying, and interfering beforehand..

Well, maybe I will sign up to the other forum..lol..

Conspiracy theories, here I come...

....but still.....

hmmmmmmm!!!!!

irishconvert

PDN wrote: »

So who do you think really did it then? The CIA, aliens, or Elvis?

Ok, if you want to sneer and try to be blasé that is your choice. Do you want to ignore these serious questions and blindly accept what you have been told by mainstream media?

It doesn't matter who really did it at this stage. In a court of law, if you are trying to prove a conviction against a particular person is unsound, you concentrate on the evidence used to convict the person. You leave the question about who really committed the crime until much later in the process. In trying to prove the Guildford four's innocence, the lawyers did not look for who really did the bombings, they concentrated on finding the evidence which proved the Guildford four were not responsible for the crime.

In the same way we should be looking at the evidence presented in the official report into 9/11 and ask the question why do the people who compiled the report not accept it's findings. Why did they complain that they were being lied to by the Government while trying to carry out their investigation? Don't you think there is a big problem here?

irishconvert

caseyann wrote: »

lol
I think seriously low brow when people start to try take the blame off those murderers to pass the buck.They should be condemned for what they did and people should stop trying to fake it as inside job.
Governments are capable of alot of things barr that.Someone would squeal.

Why why why then did the Government lie and obstruct the 9/11 commissioners when they were investigating? Why did one of the commissioners quit his post because of this?

I agree that we should condemn whoever is responsible for this atrocity, but the facts as presented to us by the US government do not add up.

Do you 100% accept the official account of what happened on Sept 11th as presented to us by the US govt.?

PDN

irishconvert wrote: »

In the same way we should be looking at the evidence presented in the official report into 9/11 and ask the question why do the people who compiled the report not accept it's findings. Why did they complain that they were being lied to by the Government while trying to carry out their investigation? Don't you think there is a big problem here?

Because they think the Government should have done better in protecting the US from the attacks. They think the intelligence services dropped the ball and, quite shamefully, allowed an amateurish attack to succeed.

That is a very different thing from seriously doubting who carried out the attack.

It doesn't matter who really did it at this stage. In a court of law, if you are trying to prove a conviction against a particular person is unsound, you concentrate on the evidence used to convict the person. You leave the question about who really committed the crime until much later in the process. In trying to prove the Guildford four's innocence, the lawyers did not look for who really did the bombings, they concentrated on finding the evidence which proved the Guildford four were not responsible for the crime.

One of the poorest analogies ever presented on this board.

Firstly, there is no doubt that the Guildford bombings were carried out by terrorists belonging to the PIRA. The only doubt is over the precise identity of the individuals involved.

Secondly, the Guildford Four would not have been released if they had:
a) Recorded videos beforehand (in an IRA camp) in which they boasted of what they were going to do.
b) Were filmed entering the crime scene.
c) Their organisation had claimed responsibility and honoured the four as 'heroes'.

Ok, if you want to sneer and try to be blasé that is your choice.

Actually, by lumping you in with the Elvis sighters and other conspiracy theorists I am being extremely charitable.

The only other alternative is to assume you are rational enough to know that Al Quaeda operatives did indeed carry out the 911 attacks in the name of Islam - but that your ideology compels you to deny the fact. That would put you in the same category as the Stormfront's Holocaust deniers, or make you like a diehard papal apologist who claimed that the Crusades were really all sweetness and light and the inhabitants of Jerusalem all killed themselves to make the Christians look bad.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

Because they think the Government should have done better in protecting the US from the attacks. They think the intelligence services dropped the ball and, quite shamefully, allowed an amateurish attack to succeed.

That is a very different thing from seriously doubting who carried out the attack.

One of the poorest analogies ever presented on this board.

Firstly, there is no doubt that the Guildford bombings were carried out by terrorists belonging to the PIRA. The only doubt is over the precise identity of the individuals involved.

Secondly, the Guildford Four would not have been released if they had:
a) Recorded videos beforehand (in an IRA camp) in which they boasted of what they were going to do.
b) Were filmed entering the crime scene.
c) Their organisation had claimed responsibility and honoured the four as 'heroes'.

Actually, by lumping you in with the Elvis sighters and other conspiracy theorists I am being extremely charitable.

The only other alternative is to assume you are rational enough to know that Al Quaeda operatives did indeed carry out the 911 attacks in the name of Islam - but that your ideology compels you to deny the fact. That would put you in the same category as the Stormfront's Holocaust deniers, or make you like a diehard papal apologist who claimed that the Crusades were really all sweetness and light and the inhabitants of Jerusalem all killed themselves to make the Christians look bad.

The better of the conspiracy theories are not simplistic. They do not deny A.Q. did the job, but allege they did it with the connivance of the USA rulers.

They make some plausible points, the standing down of air-cover, for example. The motivation suggested is also plausible - to engender fear and anger that will cause the public to surrender freedom to the State and give it a blank cheque to do whatever it wants domestically and abroad.

Recognising the evil in the human heart, that does not seem too incredible to me. But I keep an open mind until a clearer light is shone.

If there was no conspiracy, one has to accept a large number of tragic coincidences and amazing incompetence. It reminds me of the enquiry into the murder of Billy Wright in HMP Maze: guns smuggled in, holes in fences unobserved, Loyalist visiting list mistakenly given to the Republican killers, cameras faulty, guards removed from watch-towers overlooking the incident. It does look a bit suspect. But the enquiry found it all a case of tragic coincidences and amazing incompetence.
_________________________________________________________________
Luke 12:2 For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. 3 Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.

irishconvert

PDN wrote: »

Because they think the Government should have done better in protecting the US from the attacks. They think the intelligence services dropped the ball and, quite shamefully, allowed an amateurish attack to succeed.

That is a very different thing from seriously doubting who carried out the attack.

One of the poorest analogies ever presented on this board.

Firstly, there is no doubt that the Guildford bombings were carried out by terrorists belonging to the PIRA. The only doubt is over the precise identity of the individuals involved.

Secondly, the Guildford Four would not have been released if they had:
a) Recorded videos beforehand (in an IRA camp) in which they boasted of what they were going to do.
b) Were filmed entering the crime scene.
c) Their organisation had claimed responsibility and honoured the four as 'heroes'.

Actually, by lumping you in with the Elvis sighters and other conspiracy theorists I am being extremely charitable.

The only other alternative is to assume you are rational enough to know that Al Quaeda operatives did indeed carry out the 911 attacks in the name of Islam - but that your ideology compels you to deny the fact. That would put you in the same category as the Stormfront's Holocaust deniers, or make you like a diehard papal apologist who claimed that the Crusades were really all sweetness and light and the inhabitants of Jerusalem all killed themselves to make the Christians look bad.

What about the 1321 verified architectural and engineering professionals who believe the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition? What about building 7 which collapsed and was not even hit by a plane?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Do you accept the official version of events in it's entirety?

PDN

irishconvert wrote: »

What about the 1321 verified architectural and engineering professionals who believe the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition? What about building 7 which collapsed and was not even hit by a plane?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Do you accept the official version of events in it's entirety?

I suggest you try posting in Conspiracy Theories.

irishconvert

PDN wrote: »

I suggest you try posting in Conspiracy Theories.

Scared to answer the question eh

JimiTime

irishconvert wrote: »

Cop out reply

Hmmm, let me see. You duck out of giving your opinion, but rather give ambiguous statements, yet I'm copping out? Do I think there could be some dodgy goings on stateside? Of course I do. However, I think the evidence points to Al Queda, whatever the motives or manipulation.

So rather than accusations of cop out, would you like to put YOUR cards on the table, and tell us what YOU think happened? By all means use links to source material.

Of course its up to you, but that would be a better source of discussion than posting links.

JimiTime

irishconvert wrote: »

Scared to answer the question eh

Have you anything to actually say yourself on the matter?

lmaopml

In fairness to Irish Convert, and with respect, I am not - by choice, of his/her faith, but it would take some amount of convincing orators to not see the road signs that led to nine eleven??, and one doesn't need to be a conspiracy theorist either to know that Saddam was - at one stage dancing to Frank Sinatra, both out of convenience and companionship..



There is another 'Orator' in the Whitehouse at the moment who spoke about Gauntanamo - it's yet to be realised!

Ahh, it reminds me of the beam most definitely stuck in my eyes..

You know for all that, I liked Tony Blair, I think he was a man of integrity and 'grit' when the need arose....I don't particularly go along with protecting our way of life against all odds, circumstances and what is reported though....but I do believe he thought the danger after 9/11 was real and present - which it was, and he responded the only way possible.

...but I think myself that the grievances and subtle (sometimes) manipulation, and domination bore fruit, and that is the ongoing and much larger problem...

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

In fairness to Irish Convert, and with respect, I am not - by choice, of his/her faith, but it would take some amount of convincing orators to not see the road signs that led to nine eleven??, and one doesn't need to be a conspiracy theorist either to know that Saddam was - at one stage dancing to Frank Sinatra, both out of convenience and companionship..

I couldn't give a sh!te about IC's religion, nor do I have any issue with someone giving opinions on what was behind 9/11. In fact, I would welcome opinion on the event. I DO however take exception to ambiguous musings of 'I hope people don't believe what they are fed' etc. If you have something to say, then spit it out. PDN and Wolfsbane have given good postings here, and have given their thougts on things. I have noted nothing of worth in the postings of IC. In fact, I think you'll find nothing but raised eyebrows and accusations of copping out etc in his postings here on this thread.


As for me, I believe that the west actively keep Africa fighting etc. Throwing good money after bad to pretend that they actually want to help. There is no 'Good guys versus bad guys'. All this 'Freedom' BS etc. It wouldn't surprise me if a group of Africans rose up against the west, and maybe done their own 9/11 against 'the west'. They'd still be murderous scum.

irishconvert

JimiTime wrote: »

Have you anything to actually say yourself on the matter?

I have my own beliefs about who done it, but without any evidence (so far) I believe it is an unnecessary distraction from what we can prove which is that the towers did not collapse due to the impact of the planes. There are also big questions about the flying abilities of the pilots who crashed the planes into the towers. Professional pilots say the manouver which was required to steer a commercial passenger airliner into the towers at such a high speed is very difficult for an experienced pilots to complete, never mind an amateur pilot who was considered very poor by his instructor at his flight training school (where he was learning to fly a small one engline cesna airplane).

PDN

irishconvert wrote: »

Scared to answer the question eh

I'm scared that I'd have to ban myself if I voiced my real feelings about a Muslim trying to cite loony conspiracy theories to obscure the fact that a bunch of his co-religionists committed mass-murder.

antiskeptic

irishconvert wrote: »

What about the 1321 verified architectural and engineering professionals who believe the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition? What about building 7 which collapsed and was not even hit by a plane?

You would accept that a remarkable claim would require remarkable evidence? Consider though:

1) The relevant credentials of the 1321 architectural and engineering professionals on that petition.

- the vast majority of those professional have no experience in skyscraper construction

- an even vaster majority of those professionals have no experience of catastrophic building collapse .

- none of those professionals would be experienced enough in building collapse to be sure they are correctly discerning a controlled explosion masked by airliner collision.

- I'm an engineering professional and can satisfy the requirements allowing me to sign that petition. I've little building technology experience though and so my professional opinion is worthless in this matter. Neither have the multitude of telecommunication, project, student and software ... engineers who've contributed to that list the relevant professional experience. to enable them to comment.


2) 9/11 has, no doubt, been mulled over by just about every architect and engineer in the world. Only a miniscule portion of those feel compelled to cry "conspiracy!". One would conclude that tiny number belong to the ranks inclined to cry "conspiracy" - given that a miniscule portion of any population will belong to the group inclined to shout "conspiracy"


Strip that 1321 down to people with sufficient, direct experience in this subject and you've got an insignificant viewpoint.

irishconvert

PDN wrote: »

I'm scared that I'd have to ban myself if I voiced my real feelings about a Muslim trying to cite loony conspiracy theories to obscure the fact that a bunch of his co-religionists committed mass-murder.

And a bunch of your co-religionists committed mass-murder in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyway, you 100% accept the findings of the 9/11 commission report, I don't. Let's leave it at that.

antiskeptic

irishconvert wrote: »

And a bunch of your co-religionists committed mass-murder in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyway, you 100% accept the findings of the 9/11 commission report, I don't. Let's leave it at that.

There's a marked difference between detecting all the classic hallmarks of a so-called 'conspiracy theory' and accepting 100% everything the 9/11 commission say.

I don't know about PDN but I haven't even read the 9/11 commissions report. And I don't have to, not in order to smell a so-called 'conspiracy theory'