• Italian Supreme Court head calls for international 9/11 inquiry
    44 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Fippe;37701226]Well, as a president of the supreme court I guess he's bound to have some hard evidence prior to making an accusation like this, right? I don't believe he's going to find anything conclusive, though, but there's nothing that could get worse from a criminal investigation, aside the spending of a lot of (Italian) tax dollars.[/QUOTE] He is the [I]honorary[/I] president of the Italian Supreme Court, he's not the one calling the shots. Italy is not calling for an international witch hunt against the US. Imposimato instructed the trial against the Red Brigades (an incredibly dangerous italian terrorist group that kidnapped and killed Aldo Moro, former Italian Prime Minister), against Banda della Magliana (a brutal and merciless Roman gang) and he was the magister following the Bachelet Case, the Pope John Paul II assassination attempt and I can't even count all the proceedings against mafia and camorra. Now he's old, probably senile, and went [B]as a private citizen[/B] to Aja to appeal to the International Court. Get your facts straight.
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37706244]You might be in debt but the military contractors like Halliburton are rolling in dosh. Lots of people have made fortunes on the war. You are the one paying for it my friend. Open your eyes a bit :) Edit: Apparently stating a fact warrants a dumb rating now.[/QUOTE] A relatively small group of defense and security contractors made loads of money off the war, compared to the large number of industries that suffered?
facepalm
Only a bunch of facepunch posters knows what REALLY happened that day. Seriously, you guys act like a bunch of know-it-alls and attack anyone with a slightly objective or not completely black/white opinion on 9/11 (with box ratings, rather than actual discussion). Thank god this place was not around for the Kennedy assassination.
[QUOTE=Ybbats;37729769]Only a bunch of facepunch posters knows what REALLY happened that day. Seriously, you guys act like a bunch of know-it-alls and [b]attack anyone with a slightly objective or not completely black/white opinion on 9/11[/b] (with box ratings, rather than actual discussion). Thank god this place was not around for the Kennedy assassination.[/QUOTE] What does this mean? And there is actual discussion, just read the thread.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;37729821]What does this mean? And there is actual discussion, just read the thread.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Canned Induvidual;37700950]What the [U]fudge[/U][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TestECull;37701126]Apparently Italy is run by those crazies that believe 9/11 is a conspiracy.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;37701162]I thought this 9/11 conspiracy bullshit died ~05-06, but no; some morons have to keep on dragging it's dessicated equine corpse up and give it a few good whacks for old time's sake.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=markg06;37701251]Tragically shitheads like Alex Jones drag it up every other week, while simultaneously screaming about HAARP and the NWO.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BusterBluth;37701325]Come on guys, fucking really? Why are people so fucking stupid about this.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37701656]If I was Italian, I'd be ashamed right now. The head of the Italian supreme court is a truther, how embarrassing.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;37701679]it's people who are critical to the good functioning of the judicial branch of a nation, or other people whom one expects to have some grasp of reality and logic, proposing it that's worrying.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BananaFoam;37705427]And my faith in humanity drops another 20 points. How can some people be so stupid and ignorant? The conspiracies are not true. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37706269]Watch out, FP's resident truther gave you a dumb rating. Don't shatter his fragile fantasy world.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BusterBluth;37710789]Please do post these holes you speak of[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=InChoFace;37724113]facepalm[/QUOTE] So much 'actual discussion'... Oy.
Ybbats, the 9/11 conspiracy debate has been done dozens of times in SH, Mass Debate, General Disscussion, hell I even saw one once in the Video Subforum. People are sick of debating over this, countless times I've seen "truther's" get figuratively smashed apart on this forum. The holes in their theories get ripped wide open, shoddy sources brought to light, and their assumptions and "evidence" so heavily criticized and dissected that I almost felt sorry for them. Its boring. Its old. Its stupid. get over it
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37711099]Thats fucking ridiculous. One of your articles assumes that the U.S. wields god-like influence in Iraq, and possesses domineering control over Iraq' ministry of oil. This is not only factually wrong, but preposterous. -China's CNPC made five large deals with Iraq, making China one of Iraq's largest oil partners. -Malaysian firm Petronas and the British firm Shell won the first oil contract ever awarded by Iraq. - The dozen other firms operating oil fields in Iraq including, India's Reliance Industries Ltd, Austria's OMV AG, Turkey's Genel Energy, France's Total, Norway's Statoil, and Russia's Gazprom. [/QUOTE] I was sharing news articles which showed the intent and plans of US/UK shortly after the invasions. Ofcourse not everything succeeded as planned. The PSA thing [B]didnt succeed[/B] because "because it provided far more benefits to the foreign corporation than to the domestic government". But that doesnt mean the west was completely out of the picture and didnt get "anything" like King is trying to show. So you list out all the non-western companies that were awarded the contract because thats what you read in wikipedia. 1. CNPC's [B]17 billion barrel[/B] contract for the Rumaila field also includes[B] British Petroluem (BP)[/B]. 2. [B]Shell [/B]was the lead partner with Malaysia'sor Petronas, [B]winning a contract for[/B] the super-giant Majnoon field, one of the largest in the world, with estimated reserves of up to [B]25 billion[/B] 3. [B]ExxonMobil[/B], with [B]junior [/B]partner Royal Dutch Shell, [B]won [/B]a bidding war against Russia's Lukoil (and junior partner ConocoPhillips) for the [B]8.7 billion barrel[/B] West Qurna Phase 1 project. 4. Italy's Eni SpA, with [B]California's Occidental Petroleum[/B] and the Korea Gas Corp, was awarded Iraq's Zubair oil field with estimated reserves of [B]4.4 billion barrels[/B]. 5. Royal Dutch Shell had won the contract for 17billion in southern iraq Needless to say, in all the major fields, the western companies got their share, and had to (for obvious reasons) share a bit with the others as well. [quote=Oil Analyst]But it has not been an easy road for the western oil companies in Iraq. "Major western companies, such as Chevron and ConocoPhillips, that had hoped to sign contracts were unable to do so. A third round [of contracts] took place in December 2010 and saw no major western oil companies (except Shell) win contracts. I believe that there was an Iraqi backlash against the awarding of contracts to the large western major oil companies. Thus, in December 2010, fields went to Russian oil companies Lukoil and Gazprom, Norway's Statoil, and the Angolan company Sonangol, among others."[/quote] Compare this with the situation before the Iraq war (2003): [quote]Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, [B]US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market[/B]," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But t[B]hanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973[/B]."[/quote] [quote]Two of those firms are American. Some one like you, who know relatively nothing about the situation could easily claim "HEY LOOK GUYS ITS FOR OIL, SEE THE US IS THERE." And maybe the ignorant would believe you.[/quote] On the contrary, it is you, who knows little on the situation. Distorting the facts and thinking the US invaded iraq for democracy and destroy fairy tale wmds. Bitch please. [quote]In fact completely contrary to your thought, Iraq recently banned and blacklisted Chevron, the U.S.'s second largest oil company from operating in Iraq. [/quote] Thats only recently? So? I never said they had complete control. The shiite backed government doesnt let the west prance about their fields as they like. Like I mentioned before, they didnt have the success they wanted. Here's the article on the oil firms in iraq : [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/2011122813134071641.html[/url] and here's another article leaking a memo showing the intents of the british before the invasion : [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html[/url] So much for noble causes. [quote]Five months before the March 2003 invasion, [B]Baroness Symons[/B], then the Trade Minister, told [B]BP [/B]that the Government believed British energy firms [B]should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward[/B] for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.[/quote] [QUOTE=Disotrtion]Because the offer was fucking ridiculous,.[/quote] Since when did trial for supposed criminals become ridiculous? [QUOTE=Disotrtion]Afghanistan was a state sponsor of terror,[/quote] Thats a relative term and also no one questioned it at that time because of the US's bullying "your either with us or against us". [QUOTE=Disotrtion]are you really going to say that any trial of Osama held in a nation which actively sponsored terror and was home to thousands of AQ operatives, where the leader of the nation was a close friend of Osama, and the nation was partially funded by Osama (yes, he did divert some of his vast personal wealth to the Taliban) would be a fair trial? [/quote] whoever said a country that was friendly to obl was to be included. Afganistan was allegedly friendly, but other alternatives SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED [B]NEUTRAL countries[/B]. Again, why do you keep twisting words? [quote]the Emirate suggests that a new court be formed, chaired by the Attorney Generals of three Islamic countries, proceedings of which would be held in a fourth Islamic country. America would be able to present its evidence in this court and make its case against Osama bin Laden. Afghanistan will be a partner of the court and will ensure that Osama is present at the trial and stands to answer any questions and defend himself against any allegations. If Osama is unable to defend himself and is found guilty, he will be punished for his criminal deeds.[/quote] [quote]This entire charade of "Oh we'll try him, we'll try him don't worry, just give us the evidence!" was widely viewed as a delaying tactic by the Pakistanis, the only country with diplomatic ties to Afghanistan.[/quote] Are you an idiot? These calls werent from the Pakistanis, it were made from the Taliban prior to 9/11 when Taliban were considered legitimate. Charade my ass, just because they are super-powers, they dont have the right to call any trial / judgement a charade and go for (what could be essentially) unilateral action. [quote]They didn't want a trial, they wanted to buy Bin Laden as much time as they could.[/quote] Afaik, it was America who was rejecting all trial proposals. Should america hand over a wanted person in Russia to Russia for trial? Silly assumptions again. Go learn about diplomacy and international relations, you dont just ask for people to be handed over unless there is an existing extradition agreement/treaty. [quote]It is ridiculous that you think the United States of American would submit to a wanted international terrorist being tried outside of an American court, and in an Islamic one, a court where Afghanistan (the Taliban) would have a say. [/quote] Why is it ridiculous, they found it okay to communicate and establish relations and even discuss pipeline deals with the Taliban. Mind you, prior to 9/11, they were much more acceptable to the international community than your trying to portray. What ridiculous is that the US doesnt not trust any country or established court in the world except for its own? Not even [B]the hague[/B]? THAT is ridiculous. They had the right to deny Osama, the US was wrong to invade Afganistan without establishing a basis (with proof). The only difference here was that afganistan was a weak nation, with not much backing to hold up to its protests. [quote]BTW you forgot to mention your source for that last quote, but don't worry I found it. It from the book [I]My Life With The Taliban[/I], authored by a bitter former Taliban official who backs up his claim with little to no evidence.[/QUOTE] I didnt forget, the first time I mentioned a half of page from that book, I clearly mentioned it that the source is that book published by a US Columbia University Press (so its not some terrorist piece of work like your trying to show). I thought you'd love following my posts. And ofcourse your gonna call it baseless, anything source of news that criticizes american policies is baseless or biased for you, only CNN/FOX/BBC are the professional journalists right? There is evidence of all these calls for trial in newspapers for the world to see. You must be one of those kids who werent even aware of what was going on in the world when 9/11 happened, to call these claims of the Taliban ambassador baseless. There are very little pieces of work that have recorded history as is from the other side, and this book is probably one of them.
I am indeed ashamed.
[QUOTE=geoface;37701161]As crazy and illogical as this sounds, I never felt right about 9/11, it always seemed a little fishy. Just lots of strange unexplained things. [/QUOTE] No No it's not. [editline]20th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=entertainer89;37706244]You might be in debt but the military contractors like Halliburton are rolling in dosh. Lots of people have made fortunes on the war. You are the one paying for it my friend. Open your eyes a bit :) Edit: Apparently stating a fact warrants a dumb rating now.[/QUOTE] Saying completely unrelated facts warrants dumb ratings.
[QUOTE=C47;37733397]I was sharing news articles which showed the intent and plans of US/UK shortly after the invasions. Ofcourse not everything succeeded as planned. The PSA thing [B]didnt succeed[/B] because "because it provided far more benefits to the foreign corporation than to the domestic government". But that doesnt mean the west was completely out of the picture and didnt get "anything" like King is trying to show. So you list out all the non-western companies that were awarded the contract because thats what you read in wikipedia.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]1. CNPC's [B]17 billion barrel[/B] contract for the Rumaila field also includes[B] British Petroluem (BP)[/B].[/QUOTE] HAHAHAHA this is only one of the five recent contracts, BP had 38% share, CNPC has the other 62%. What a tangential argument, this is overwhelmingly a Chinese investment. Are you serious right now? You're grasping at straws [QUOTE]2. [B]Shell [/B]was the lead partner with Malaysia'sor Petronas, [B]winning a contract for[/B] the super-giant Majnoon field, one of the largest in the world, with estimated reserves of up to [B]25 billion[/B][/QUOTE] yeah and I wrote this, reiterating it does nothing. ....except show that you're lost [QUOTE]3. [B]ExxonMobil[/B], with [B]junior [/B]partner Royal Dutch Shell, [B]won [/B]a bidding war against Russia's Lukoil (and junior partner ConocoPhillips) for the [B]8.7 billion barrel[/B] West Qurna Phase 1 project.[/QUOTE] Its funny cause you copy-and-pasted this verbatim off of the Wikipedia page for West Qurna oil field. Right after you made snarky comments about the usage of Wikipedia. You also omitted the fact that Lukoil and Statoil won rights to phase II of the project which is even larger than phase I, by over 3 billion barrels. You are not only hypocritical, but ignorant. [QUOTE]4. Italy's Eni SpA, with [B]California's Occidental Petroleum[/B] and the Korea Gas Corp, was awarded Iraq's Zubair oil field with estimated reserves of [B]4.4 billion barrels[/B].[/QUOTE] Its an Italian led project, with Eni holding the majority of shares. BTW, even Iraq's national oil company has a larger stake in this than the American company, so this actually is contrary to your main point. [QUOTE]5. Royal Dutch Shell had won the contract for 17billion in southern iraq[/QUOTE] irrelevant. and even Britian wants a slice of the pie. [QUOTE] Needless to say, in all the major fields, the western companies got their share, and had to (for obvious reasons) share a bit with the others as well.[/QUOTE] Actually this was about the American and British companies, not all western ones, referencing directly the articles you originally cited. Don't try to steer the debate. I don't see them raking the the massive profits that you allege they are, in contrary they are having a rather tough time for an oil company in what you allege should be an "easy" market. [QUOTE]Compare this with the situation before the Iraq war (2003):[/QUOTE] yep Saddam took the oil for himself, why deal with Westerners? Cut out the middlemen. He traded through the UN's Oil for Food program, and personally made two billion dollars. The Iraqi people didn't see a cent. Maybe this time it will be different, now that the money isn't in the hands of a dictator. [QUOTE]Thats only recently? So? I never said they had complete control. The shiite backed government doesnt let the west prance about their fields as they like. Like I mentioned before, they didnt have the success they wanted.[/QUOTE] HA. Success they wanted? Your entire theory revolves around war for oil. If they wanted the oil [I]they could just take it[/I], why let a government that they put into power stop them.. Unless its not a war for oil......... [QUOTE]Here's the article on the oil firms in iraq : [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/2011122813134071641.html[/url] and here's another article leaking a memo showing the intents of the british before the invasion : [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html[/url] So much for noble causes. [/QUOTE] That memo was disclosed 4 days before the general election there is no original, only copies. The original was destroyed to protect the source. looks like a political ploy to me, scour to find a potentially incriminating document, leak it to the British press days before an election. Smart. And even if its authenticity is verified, which it has not been yet, than the contents of memo are subject to further debate over wording and phrasing which is a whole other debate. In addition I don't see how a memo between two British aides constitutes damming evidence for US/British motivations. [QUOTE]Since when did trial for supposed criminals become ridiculous?[/QUOTE] its not, but the Talibans offer sure was. Read the sentence. [QUOTE]Thats a relative term and also no one questioned it at that time because of the US's bullying "your either with us or against us". [/QUOTE] Its not relative, they both financially and materially supported terrorism [QUOTE]whoever said a country that was friendly to obl was to be included. Afganistan was allegedly friendly, but other alternatives SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED [B]NEUTRAL countries[/B]. Again, why do you keep twisting words?[/QUOTE] Read the demand, [QUOTE]Afghanistan will be a partner of the court[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]chaired by the Attorney Generals of three Islamic countries[/QUOTE] In a Sharia court under Islamic law, partnered with Afghanistan, a state sponsor of terror, and outside the reach of the USA. Nowhere does it mention neutral countries, nor are the countries specifically named. Did you even read the demand? [QUOTE] Are you an idiot? These calls werent from the Pakistanis, it were made from the Taliban prior to 9/11 when Taliban were considered legitimate. Charade my ass, just because they are super-powers, they dont have the right to call any trial / judgement a charade and go for (what could be essentially) unilateral action.[/QUOTE] I didn't say the statement was from Pakistanis I said it was delivered to Pakistanis the only nation which had diplomatic relations with the Taliban. And even they thought it was a delaying tactic what bullshit. [QUOTE]Afaik, it was America who was rejecting all trial proposals. Should america hand over a wanted person in Russia to Russia for trial? Silly assumptions again. Go learn about diplomacy and international relations, you dont just ask for people to be handed over unless there is an existing extradition agreement/treaty.[/QUOTE] again, the trial "proposal" was completely ridiculous, and viewed as a delaying tactic the Pakistanis thought so, and the Americans agreed its not an assumption, it was a widely held view of the Pakistanis negotiators [QUOTE]they found it okay to communicate and establish relations and even discuss pipeline deals with the Taliban[/QUOTE] Wrong. We had no relations with the Taliban, the Pakistanis did negotiating for us. [QUOTE]Mind you, prior to 9/11, they were much more acceptable to the international community than your trying to portray[/QUOTE] Wrong, the only country that recognized them was Pakistan. [QUOTE]What ridiculous is that the US doesnt not trust any country or established court in the world except for its own?[/QUOTE] Wrong, it was specifically stated the trial would be in an Islamic court under Sharia law. Not Ameican law, not even international law. [QUOTE] Not even the hague?[/QUOTE] Nowhere in the statement is this mentioned. Not even briefly. Nor is it mentioned anywhere in the original text you plagiarized from [I]My Life With The Taliban[/I] [QUOTE]They had the right to deny Osama, the US was wrong to invade Afganistan without establishing a basis (with proof). The only difference here was that afganistan was a weak nation, with not much backing to hold up to its protests.[/QUOTE] Third poorest in the world at the time, thank civil war and the Taliban for that. They got the evidence, they wanted more and more. Once again, Afghanistan was a nation that harbored AQ, just like Sudan harbored AQ in the late 90's. Hezbollah killed over 200 Marines in 1983 Reagan pulls troops out 18 Army Rangers are killed in Mogadishu, 1993 Clinton pulls troops out. In 1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are bombed by AQ, Clinton orders an ineffectual missile strike. AQ camps are not even hit. A US destroyer is bombed by AQ, killing 17 sailors in 2000. Clinton does nothing. Bin Laden says Americans are "paper tigers" who will "run in less than 24 hours" In 2001, AQ kills almost 3,000 Americans. This time we brought the fight to them. Now all that's left are apologists like you who blame us for their aggression. While we blame ourselves for our past inaction. [QUOTE]I didnt forget, the first time I mentioned a half of page from that book, I clearly mentioned it that the source is that book published by a US Columbia University Press (so its not some terrorist piece of work like your trying to show). I thought you'd love following my posts.[/QUOTE] No I'm not some kind of stalker, but thanks anyway Your supposed to cite it when you copy passages from it. This is common knowledge. [QUOTE]And ofcourse your gonna call it baseless, anything source of news that criticizes american policies is baseless or biased for you, only CNN/FOX/BBC are the professional journalists right? There is evidence of all these calls for trial in newspapers for the world to see. [/QUOTE] Wow whoop-dee-do Columbia Press, am I supposed to be impressed? The book is an autobiography, he doesn't have to be factually accurate and is definitely not held to academic standards. He's writing about himself. One of the Editors is a freelance journalist and the other editior is a dude with a BA in developmental studies. [QUOTE]You must be one of those kids who werent even aware of what was going on in the world when 9/11 happened, to call these claims of the Taliban ambassador baseless. [/QUOTE] What so if you call me a kid, all my points and evidence will disappear? Is this like, some magic trick I don't know about Do tell. [QUOTE]There are very little pieces of work that have recorded history as is from the other side, and this book is probably one of them.[/QUOTE] You can read plenty of stuff from independent third parties, but you choose to cling to this book. You have used this sole book as your primary source. Surely you see fallacy in that.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37733717]No No it's not. [editline]20th September 2012[/editline] Saying completely unrelated facts warrants dumb ratings.[/QUOTE] It's only unrelated if you want it to be buddy. If you are too stupid to piece together the bigger picture then I can't help you.
[QUOTE=entertainer89;37753387]It's only unrelated if you want it to be buddy. If you are too stupid to piece together the bigger picture then I can't help you.[/QUOTE] Hm, lets see, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests 9/11 was an inside job. Every single argument ever presented has been debunked from hell and back, the only evidence truthers rely on is tired arguments, eerie feelings and the small backing of moderately credible people - Yup, I'm too stupid to put the pieces together, you're right entertainer. You're totally not grasping for straws with what few stupid arguments you seem to desperately hold onto. You do realise truthers have less credibility then people who think the earth is flat, right?
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;37701209]Ahem, this link should answer your questions, [I]period[/I]: [url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories[/url][/QUOTE] These guys ignore the whole fact that the WTC has like a two month long "Elevator" renovation before 9/11.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;37754170]These guys ignore the whole fact that the WTC has like a two month long "Elevator" renovation before 9/11.[/QUOTE] Elevator renovations take a long time in a building of that size.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.