• Israel Lobbyist suggests False Flag attack to force the U.S. into a war with Iran
    160 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Killer900;37814795]im not a truther. Aldo you make it sound like youre on some sort of goddamn crusade. destroy me? lol.[/QUOTE] not a truther lmao whatever you say "im not saying FEMA camps exist but i mean.. the evidence is overwhelming.."
It astounds me that people actually believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Yeah, our government totally went ahead and destroyed two incredibly expensive and important buildings just so we could throw ourselves into an extremely costly war with zero benefit.
yeah but they can tap our phones now [I]worth it[/I]
[QUOTE=Killer900;37812867]lol ok buddy I'll be sure to heed the advice of what some random internet nerd tells me to do.[/QUOTE] lmao dont get condescending maybe you should realize just how literally dumb youre being.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37813327]Exactly, they're both shit but one is less retarded.[/QUOTE] Israel makes better weapons Their universities are also MUCH better. So no they are not more "retarded"
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37815847]Israel makes better weapons Their universities are also MUCH better. So no they are not more "retarded"[/QUOTE] And we have the US and Britain to thank for that. And their foreign policy is still more retarded.
[QUOTE=geoface;37812396]Speaking of supposed false flag operations, 9/11 WTC Attacks, deaths of 2'996 US citizens, [b]NEVAR FURGHET!! DEATH TO MUSLIMS!![/b] Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings, deaths of 3'200 US citizens. [b]FORGOTTEN.[/b][/QUOTE] wait how did the atomic bombings result in American deaths?
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37813458]Pre-1979 Iran was the most western-influenced middle eastern country. While the US and co had Shah in place, Iran was the biggest ally in the region, in fact, it was the only ally, Saudi Arabia was minor.[/QUOTE] Except when they decided to go [URL="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/29/the_shahs_atomic_dreams"]Nuclear[/URL]. [QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37813299]They're both crazy religious states, the only difference is that one openly admits it and the other doesn't.[/QUOTE] "This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy." -- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971 Prime Minister of Israel (1969 - 1974) They have done so in the past though. Presently not so much, now they want to go with the "shield of democracy and spear of freedom" rhetoric.
[QUOTE=C47;37816020]Except when they decided to go [URL="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/29/the_shahs_atomic_dreams"]Nuclear[/URL].[/QUOTE] Well, yes, but as referenced in the article, the US gave them their first nuclear reactor as part of the 'Atoms for Peace' gig. However, as soon as Mosadeq leant the country towards oil nationalization, Britain and the US had to desperately try to stop them, because you can't tell a nuclear power what to do with their own resources. (India was 'allowed' to launch their bomb because Britain didn't have it's eye on it's resources at that point) That also extends to the current Iranian nuclear program debate. This is evidence for the hypothesis that Israel does not want Iran having nuclear weapons, not because they might nuke them, but because they will have real power over any middle eastern topic. Also, that article seems a little biased, can't put my finger on it.
It's probably worse being a fucking retard who thinks that false flags can only happen in movies than being a conspiracy theorist. Or actually not entrenching in your stupid opinion and going on about a bloody crusade against someone just because he doesn't agree with you. Kopimi and trotskygrad.
Fuck this sucks so bad, if this sort of thing would happen (hopefully the government in Israel is at least smart enough to not do this sort of crap) then my friend would probably get moved to the front of such a war. Damnit Israeli government, why do you have to have mandatory military service? Can't you guys wait two years before starting a war with Iran? He'd probably be out of harm's way though, since he is a mechanic.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;37816372]It's probably worse being a fucking retard who thinks that false flags can only happen in movies than being a conspiracy theorist. Or actually not entrenching in your stupid opinion and going on about a bloody crusade against someone just because he doesn't agree with you. Kopimi and trotskygrad.[/QUOTE] ?? but i admitted the american government has committed false flags in the past so how could i think they only happen in movies? clam down bud
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37813915]HURR DURR FALSE FLAGS ONLY HAPPEN TO OTHER COUNTRIES!! SILLY TIN FOIL HAT WEARERS STOP QUESTIONING THINGS AND SHUT UP ALREADY!!! FREEDOM!! USA! USA! USA![/QUOTE] Make a claim please make a claim so I can come down on you. We've done this about a thousand times before entertainer, lets do it one more time. We already spoke about this "hurr durr" thing, it just makes you look autistic. [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Killer900;37814795]im not a truther. Aldo you make it sound like youre on some sort of goddamn crusade. destroy me? lol.[/QUOTE] You're a giant baby. Even though it's 100% obviously 9/11 wasn't a false flag operation, you want to take the edgy route and say we can't know for sure, yet you act like a child when people basically disprove it.
Yes, I also think it's pretty damn backwards to verbally rape someone instead of providing a valid counter-argument, even if you think they are completely wrong. To not do so, is to poison the debate, and it ruins the entire foundation of logical arguing.
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816105]Well, yes, but as referenced in the article, the US gave them their first nuclear reactor as part of the 'Atoms for Peace' gig. However, as soon as Mosadeq leant the country towards oil nationalization, Britain and the US had to desperately try to stop them, because you can't tell a nuclear power what to do with their own resources. (India was 'allowed' to launch their bomb because Britain didn't have it's eye on it's resources at that point) That also extends to the current Iranian nuclear program debate. This is evidence for the hypothesis that Israel does not want Iran having nuclear weapons, not because they might nuke them, but because they will have real power over any middle eastern topic. Also, that article seems a little biased, can't put my finger on it.[/QUOTE] Well, if you read about it on wikipedia, it seems as though the US had no problems at with Iran having have nuclear power. The problem was nuclear weapons (or enrichment of uranium which could lead to nuclear weapons). So even after all the friendly attitude of the west towards the Shah, they (Israel or the US) were not able to trust him with enrichment. It is noteworthy that "Shah" Iran and Israel had very good relations. Trying to see if there was any public threat made to Israel, which could have lead to his regime toppling (farfetched theory). After all, the "Islamic" revolution did manage to stall nuclear enrichment in Iran for 20+ years. As in the case of Saddam who was a western ally too, but as soon as he threatened Israel (along the lines of launching a scud storm on israel if another palestinian dies) and stopped being a puppet of the west, he was no longer a good guy too. Having an islamic state with a nuclear weapon is as troubling to the west as a communist state having a nuclear weapon. Because a powerful islamic state would directly challenge israel. The purpose of 9/11 was not only to launch wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, but more importantly to bring the US into a long-term, multi-generational war against Israel’s enemies – namely, the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816483]Make a claim please make a claim so I can come down on you. We've done this about a thousand times before entertainer, lets do it one more time. [/QUOTE] The fact that you're so patriotically confident in this debate really is evidence to the contrary, why would an event like 9/11 be publicized as much as it was, if it did not have another motive behind it? I'm not saying it did, I'm pointing out a 'what-if' scenario. I know how you guys get when someone says anything about 9/11.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816483] You're a giant baby. [/QUOTE] Says you, a person on the internet who got upset by other person simply because he has different opinion and doesn't agree with you. Applying your logic to yourself, you're the one screaming and shitting his/her diapers.
[QUOTE=C47;37816503]Well, if you read about it on wikipedia, it seems as though the US had no problems at with Iran having have nuclear power. The problem was nuclear weapons (or enrichment of uranium which could lead to nuclear weapons). So even after all the friendly attitude of the west towards the Shah, they (Israel or the US) were not able to trust him with enrichment. It is noteworthy that "Shah" Iran and Israel had very good relations. Trying to see if there was any public threat made to Israel, which could have lead to his regime toppling (farfetched theory). After all, the "Islamic" revolution did manage to stall nuclear enrichment in Iran for 20+ years. As in the case of Saddam who was a western ally too, but as soon as he threatened Israel (along the lines of launching a scud storm on israel if another palestinian dies) and stopped being a puppet of the west, he was no longer a good guy too. Having an islamic state with a nuclear weapon is as troubling to the west as a communist state having a nuclear weapon. Because a powerful islamic state would directly challenge israel. The purpose of 9/11 was not only to launch wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, but more importantly to bring the US into a long-term, multi-generational war against Israel’s enemies – namely, the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims.[/QUOTE] I agree, however, I'm stating that the ultimate breaking point of the entire situation was the nationalization of oil, and not the fact that they were producing nuclear weapons, as previously stated, take a look at India, did the US and Britain do anything? I guess not as much as the would to an oil-nationalized Iran with nukes. I also concur that the revolution setting back nuclear development is a very strange coincidence, however, I don't think the US would've cared so much about the nuke had Shah been in power, and they hadn't nationalized the oil. [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816483] Even though it's 100% obviously 9/11 wasn't a false flag operation, you want to take the edgy route and say we can't know for sure, yet you act like a child when people basically disprove it.[/QUOTE] It's not 100% obvious. We have little to no information around the background of the event from either the US or the opposing side. We can't know for sure, because there isn't enough evidence to disprove the conspiracy argument, and no one in this thread has disproved it so far. What I can deduce from your absolute jingoism, is that you are stuck up in your ideals, and you can't actually provide a counter-argument, so you're waiting for someone with more information than you on the entire 9/11 event to enter the thread, 'destroy' the opposition, and subtly free you from the burden of forming a logical debate.
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816512]why would an event like 9/11 be publicized as much as it was, if it did not have another motive behind it? [/QUOTE] Because it was the worse man-made disaster in America in over 40 years? Are you really questioning why it was publicised? [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=smeismastger;37816531]Says you, a person on the internet who got upset by other person simply because he has different opinion and doesn't agree with you. Applying your logic to yourself, you're the one screaming and shitting his/her diapers.[/QUOTE] wow, that is quite the jump you made. You are either willingly exagerating about 150% more then what is actually happening or in this case not even happening or you are the single worse judge of written tone in human history. [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] I like to imagine you interpret my saying of 'wow' as me literally jumping up and screaming wow then putting a fist through my computer.
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816512]The fact that you're so patriotically confident in this debate really is evidence to the contrary, why would an event like 9/11 be publicized as much as it was, if it did not have another motive behind it? I'm not saying it did, I'm pointing out a 'what-if' scenario. I know how you guys get when someone says anything about 9/11.[/QUOTE] "you're so patriotically confident" uh goblin hates america lmao why would 9/11 be publicized so much? maybe because it was a really big deal, a super traumatic event, thousands of people died, a landmark in one of our biggest cities was destroyed in an instant, etc? [QUOTE=smeismastger;37816531]Says you, a person on the internet who got upset by other person simply because he has different opinion and doesn't agree with you. Applying your logic to yourself, you're the one screaming and shitting his/her diapers.[/QUOTE] does anyone on facepunch have any inkling of an idea what being upset or angry is? i'm p sure the conspiracy theorist calling people "fucking retarded" and putting words in people's mouths is a lot more angry than someone who said "youre a giant baby" in a taunting way [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mike42012;37816550]It's not 100% obvious. We have little to no information around the background of the event from either the US or the opposing side. We can't know for sure, because there isn't enough evidence to disprove the conspiracy argument, and no one in this thread has disproved it so far. What I can deduce from your absolute jingoism, is that you are stuck up in your ideals, and you can't actually provide a counter-argument, so you're waiting for someone with more information than you on the entire 9/11 event to enter the thread, 'destroy' the opposition, and subtly free you from the burden of forming a logical debate.[/QUOTE] oh but there is enough evidence to disprove the conspiracy argument. since you're clearly so open to a "logical debate" feel free to share some of your conspiracy theories and we'll be more than happy to prove you wrong. we have plenty of information about the background of the event, and who is "the opposing side"? jingoism? anyone who doesn't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy is a jingoist? lmao get over yourself dude
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816550]It's not 100% obvious. We have little to no information around the background of the event from either the US or the opposing side.[/quote] um, yeah, you have a lot. There was this whole 9/11 commission thing you may have missed out on. And an FBI investigation. Oh and there's also pretty much every bit of information down to how it happened out there. I mean, what more do you want? Them to build a time machine and record the events of every government agency as it unfolds? [quote]We can't know for sure, because there isn't enough evidence to disprove the conspiracy argument, and no one in this thread has disproved it so far.[/quote] Two things boyo. One: No claims have been made to debunk. Two: It has been done several times, a lot by me, in the past on this website. [quote]What I can deduce from your absolute jingoism[/quote] So let me get this straight, NOT thinking that 9/11 was an inside job is jingoism. Please punch your mother for giving birth to you. [quote]is that you are stuck up in your ideals, and you can't actually provide a counter-argument, so you're waiting for someone with more information than you on the entire 9/11 event to enter the thread, 'destroy' the opposition, and subtly free you from the burden of forming a logical debate.[/QUOTE] You're claiming the official story isn't true. Okay, right there is where you have the burden of proof. Look it up, I'm morally in the right for waiting for you lunatics to present something solid other then "well you're just stuck up" [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] I have a challenge for you Mike42012 (what are you, a star wars droid?), if you can provide me one piece, and I mean one small solitary piece that proves that at the very least, we should be suspicious of the official story about 9/11, I will concede my arguments defeat.
are there seriously a few conspiracy theorists in here? i was hoping to discuss shit but when you have to remind people that other than a few arms deals no-one ever liked saddam, pakistan has nuclear weapons is islamic and israel doesnt give a shit about them, and that begging the question about why 9/11 is so publicised leads to wondering who would be enforcing this agenda leading to someone controlling the media leading to conspiracy theories. i could just form a list of things that are wrong with every post and it still wouldn't accurately convey how wrong it is nor shut them up from talking about the integrity of arguments when they can't even keep their worldview consistent without logical fallacies.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816608]Because it was the worse man-made disaster in America in over 40 years?[/QUOTE] It may be the worst, most stark, striking event in the history of forever, it would still not deserve as much attention as it was getting at the time. It was rampant, the American populace was completely agreeing with whatever policy was made, whether or not it took a toll on their human/civil rights. (PATRIOT Act, even the very word is testament to the over-publicizing of the event) [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816608] Are you really questioning why it was publicised? [/QUOTE] Yes, I am, because that is one of the key points of the other side of the argument. Implying that history is not to be questioned is a fallacy. I could deny the holocaust, I could deny WWII outright, I could deny all African history, it would still be a valid statement, there would still have to be counter-arguments. However, in most of those cases, we have had a massive amount of evidence from both sides, the aggressors in WWII, and the defenders. Which makes it easy to decide. The point I'm trying to make is that when you deny the questioning of history, you open the doors for conspiracy. What would happen if 9/11 was a massive inside job, and people were outright denied, legally, to question it? That would mean the government, people in power, would be able to get away with a lot more shit without fear of retribution from the populace. What is happening in 9/11's case is similar, although unproved, we are declined by our peers when we question the validity of the event. That is wrong. It is an upset to debate. It should not EVER happen. I couldn't care less about the whole 'truther' debate, however, when you threaten debate itself, you are making a massive mistake and retarding the entire arguments growth. The point of arguing these topics, is to reach a sound, intellectually reasoned conclusion. We can't do that if you outright deny the other side any ground, and insult the people putting forth claims to the contrary of your argument.
I commend your patriotism, but it is nothing when all you do is talk about it. Pointless debates on dick measuring. Now... Bring on the tanks and let the party begin;)
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816700]It may be the worst, most stark, striking event in the history of forever, it would still not deserve as much attention as it was getting at the time. It was rampant, the American populace was completely agreeing with whatever policy was made, whether or not it took a toll on their human/civil rights. (PATRIOT Act, even the very word is testament to the over-publicizing of the event) Yes, I am, because that is one of the key points of the other side of the argument. Implying that history is not to be question is a fallacy. I could deny the holocaust, I could deny WWII outright, I could deny all African history, it would still be a valid statement, there would still have to be counter-arguments. However, in most of those cases, we have had a massive amount of evidence from both sides, the aggressors in WWII, and the defenders. Which makes it easy to decide. The point I'm trying to make is that when you deny the questioning of history, you open the doors for conspiracy. What would happen if 9/11 was a massive inside job, and people were outright denied, legally, to question it? That would mean the government, people in power, would be able to get away with a lot more shit without fear of retribution from the populace. What is happening in 9/11's case is similar, although unproved, we are declined by our peers when we question the validity of the event. That is wrong. It is an upset to debate. It should not EVER happen. I couldn't care less about the whole 'truther' debate, however, when you threaten debate itself, you are making a massive mistake and retarding the entire arguments growth. The point of arguing these topics, is to reach a sound, intellectually reasoned conclusion. We can't do that if you outright deny the other side any ground, and insult the people putting forth claims to the contrary of your argument.[/QUOTE] the fuck are you on about "people talked about 9/11 a lot therefore it was an inside job!!"
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816660] So let me get this straight, NOT thinking that 9/11 was an inside job is jingoism. Please punch your mother for giving birth to you.[/QUOTE] No, but you constantly refusing to argue any point to the contrary, and instead resorting to ad hominem, is. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816660]You're claiming the official story isn't true. Okay, right there is where you have the burden of proof. Look it up, I'm morally in the right for waiting for you lunatics to present something solid other then "well you're just stuck up"[/QUOTE] I'm claiming the official story is exaggerated, and there were massive policy implications for it's over-publication. My proof is the PATRIOT act. There you go, prove me wrong. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816660]I have a challenge for you Mike42012 (what are you, a star wars droid?), if you can provide me one piece, and I mean one small solitary piece that proves that at the very least, we should be suspicious of the official story about 9/11, I will concede my arguments defeat.[/QUOTE] The above is my argument. [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;37816717]the fuck are you on about "people talked about 9/11 a lot therefore it was an inside job!!"[/QUOTE] Read the post next time, and don't just spout the same fucking line again and again; [quote] What is happening in 9/11's case is similar, although unproved, we are declined by our peers when we question the validity of the event. That is wrong. It is an upset to debate. It should not EVER happen. [/quote] Did I say Dick Cheney hired a couple prostitutes to fly the planes into the buildings?
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816724]No, but you constantly refusing to argue any point to the contrary, and instead resorting to ad hominem, is. I'm claiming the official story is exaggerated, and there were massive policy implications for it's over-publication. My proof is the PATRIOT act. There you go, prove me wrong. The above is my argument.[/QUOTE] uh how was the story "exaggerated". it may have been hyped up and sensationalized but in the end everything that is involved in the "story" of 9/11 is still true. i would hardly say it was over publicized but whatever thats your (stupid) opinion. yes there were massive policy implications resulting from 9/11. congratulations on posing the least argumentative argument in human history. all we're saying is 9/11 wasn't an inside job lol [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mike42012;37816724]Read the post next time, and don't just spout the same fucking line again and again; Did I say Dick Cheney hired a couple prostitutes to fly the planes into the buildings?[/QUOTE] what does this even mean what are you talking about [quote]What is happening in 9/11's case is similar, although unproved, we are declined by our peers when we question the validity of the event. That is wrong. It is an upset to debate. It should not EVER happen. [/quote] this makes literally no sense, can you please translate it into english for me so i can show you why its stupid. are you saying its bad for people not to want to debate 9/11 being an inside job or not? i sorta agree if you mean people who never consider the possibility of foul play but i'm disagreeing because i know you're wrong and can prove it so yeah idk just stop already
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816724]No, but you constantly refusing to argue any point to the contrary, and instead resorting to ad hominem, is. I'm claiming the official story is exaggerated, and there were massive policy implications for it's over-publication. My proof is the PATRIOT act. There you go, prove me wrong. The above is my argument.[/QUOTE] does this guy not even realised that prove me wrong is a fallacy? stating something with a complete non-sequitur and pushing the burden of proof to the other person? the patriot act is beneficial to the us government because it gives them more power. if the patriot act was only passed due to the social changes from 9/11 and the BIG assumption that they wanted to bring this kind of thing in beforehand, you have two paths. the first is that they made use of the circumstances and it was caused by other factors. the second is that THEY DID IT THEMSELVES, THEY WANTED TO BRING IN THE PATRIOT ACT SO THEY ORCHESTRATED 9/11 THEMSELVES. with occams razor, which is more logical?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37816745]uh how was the story "exaggerated". it may have been hyped up and sensationalized but in the end everything that is involved in the "story" of 9/11 is still true.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it is. The story wasn't exaggerated, the conflict was. [QUOTE=Kopimi;37816745]i would hardly say it was over publicized but whatever thats your (stupid) opinion. yes there were massive policy implications resulting from 9/11.[/QUOTE] Then you weren't; a) Alive when it happend b) Reading the news when it happend [QUOTE=Kopimi;37816745]congratulations on posing the least argumentative argument in human history. all we're saying is 9/11 wasn't an inside job lol[/QUOTE] You're a great source for an intellectual debate, next time I'm taking a shit I'll recount the amount of times you've superimposed 'it was an inside job' onto my posts, when I made a specific point to steer clear of that sentence and anything relating to it.
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816781]Yeah, it is. The story wasn't exaggerated, the conflict was.[/quote] what does this even mean can somebody please get me a translator [QUOTE=Mike42012;37816781]Then you weren't; a) Alive when it happend b) Reading the news when it happend[/quote] or i'm of the bizarre opinion that national tragedies are rightfully "overpublicized" [QUOTE=Mike42012;37816781]You're a great source for an intellectual debate, next time I'm taking a shit I'll recount the amount of times you've superimposed 'it was an inside job' onto my posts, when I made a specific point to steer clear of that sentence and anything relating to it.[/QUOTE] then why are you even posting
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.