Bush unifying the Middle East?

[Stizzles]

You claim to not need links because you have Google, yet can't look up easy to find information for yourself? Perhaps not everyone has the time to be your personal librarian.

I didn't even say that I disagree with your claim, Turbo.

I just pointed out that when you don't support your claims, nobody has any reason to believe you. You can either continue to whine about having to actually substantiate your claims, or you can step up and actually do it--it's called "debate".

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Stizzles I didn't even say that I disagree with your claim, Turbo. I just pointed out that when you don't support your claims, nobody has any reason to believe you. You can either continue to whine about having to actually substantiate your claims, or you can step up and actually do it--it's called "debate".

Again, the proof is in the thread, you just refuse to acknowledge it or answer any valid points, instead relying on "not it's not" as your rebuttal. This moves us nowhere.

[Stizzles]

Again, the proof is in the thread, you just refuse to acknowledge it or answer any valid points, instead relying on "not it's not" as your rebuttal. This moves us nowhere.

If you don't support your own claims, you can't blame me for rejecting them.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Stizzles Here, I'll make some claims that have exactly as much evidence as you've just offered: The CIA and M16 blew up the moon and replaced it with a space station. Angelina Jolie is actually a Mossad agent sent to kill Muslim terrorists. "Superman" was actually the code name for a chemically-enhanced super soldier in WWII.

why don't you watch this video by the BBC and then tell me I'm making up things.

Timewatch: Operation Gladio - Behind False Flag Terrorism & 9/11 (part2)

For some reason google video pulled the full video which I linked to in earlier posts.

if you have any links to back up you're agument I will look at them, but just to spout off at the mouth is not debate.

[Stizzles]

So...the theory is that our government in 1992 began carrying out clandestine terrorist attacks that we blamed on other terrorist organizations, then proceeded to attack them?

How were they involved in 9/11? How was our government involved? Who authorized it? When did it begin?

Where's the evidence?

[thx1138]

Quote by: Stizzles So...the theory is that our government in 1992 began carrying out clandestine terrorist attacks that we blamed on other terrorist organizations, then proceeded to attack them? How were they involved in 9/11? How was our government involved? Who authorized it? When did it begin? Where's the evidence?

Ever so slowly the light is seeping in.. just a crack at first but it's a start.

The ISI plays a very big role in what happened and is happening still to this day, and it's not the whole government of your country it's only a group within it.

YouTube - 9/11 Japan Parliament 1/10/2008 Pt 1/8 OLD VERSION subs

[Charlatan]

Well what's the point of sponsoring terrorism and not having your demands met, as you are veiled? I was referring to them sponsoring terrorism but not organinsing it, but I guess that seems a bit over the top. All is fair in love and war, so now I could see a government using special forces to attack the enemy, but as I said these ramifications are minimal. Forget about nine eleven, that was the only attack worth mentioning, besides the train bombings in London, and they were all claimed by the sponsor, so shouldn't all attacks be claimed. It is no godd to attack your enemy weakly and hope he knoes it's you. At the time of the attack demands must have been made before the attack to be held and that didn't happen, or there would be direct war, not this silly to and fro that gets nobody anywhere.

So you say the good guys also sponsor terrorism? What are their demands? It is not often that people like killing others without demands, be it a civil war or whatever, people have a point to what they do. If it is to destabilise the region, then they should aim higher up, as these lackies are easily replaced. If it is to encite the opposition into attacking you, then they would claim them. What good is bombing a senate when those aren't the guys calling the shots, and with no demands? It makes people want to kill one another, sure, but they won't blame each other for long, as killings in the area are usually for a Godly purpose, not a political one. Have they convinced some people that there are false prophets 'in the house'? This would surely be the better option if someone isn't playing ball with you - kill them. How do you convince someone that any other place is worthy of them giving their lives? They may be fearless, but they have morals, so to convince someone that a building needs to be blown up for economic gain isn't going to go down well. So what do they do? Lie? I can't think they would persuade a bomber that there are false prophets in any random building, and they would smell a rat most probably. But they may do it for money to be snet to their families, but then there is the fear of God that is rife in the region, so no way through there either. You got to persuade people that the task is holy, and that is no small feat.

[xyzer]

I don't know whats being peddled by the South African press but suggest you google under the following phrase Charlatan..
"Iranian Arms shipments to Al Qaeda"...I think your question is answered by multiple sources. Those Islamic trolls are fomenting trouble in the area. They and the Syrians have done much to protract the Iraqi attempts at peaceful government.

[thx1138]

So you say the good guys also sponsor terrorism? What are their demands? It is not often that people like killing others without demands, be it a civil war or whatever, people have a point to what they do. If it is to destabilise the region, then they should aim higher up, as these lackies are easily replaced.

The good guys? who do you mean by the good guys? There are not good guys just groups that are fighting over the pie. World terrorism is funding by banks which fund both sides of any conflict to keep the status quo. The U.S.S.R. folding up was a big set back for the banks which used the cold war conflict to reap the rewards of both side borrowing money to build bigger and bigger arsenals.

Into the vacuum steps "Islamic trolls" as the sheeple on the other side like to call them. Once again military spending on both sides is skyrocketing and the banks are reaping in the rewards of the money that is being borrowed. With out the "us" versus "them" balence in the world, governments and people would start thinking about this system of banks and debt that controls everyone of us want for an end to it.

The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside View of International Banking by G. Edward

[grandpa]

Quote by: thx1138 The good guys? who do you mean by the good guys?

Presumably, patriotic Americans. To some people, life is like a comic book and we're always the super heroes (or maybe I should say video game, because we're so often scurrying around for credits and points).

Grandpa h.

[Charlatan]

Quote by: xyzer I don't know whats being peddled by the South African press but suggest you google under the following phrase Charlatan.. "Iranian Arms shipments to Al Qaeda"...I think your question is answered by multiple sources. Those Islamic trolls are fomenting trouble in the area. They and the Syrians have done much to protract the Iraqi attempts at peaceful government.

So they have shipped arms to Al Queda, no doubt in exchange for money. That is the key here, money that they recieve. If someone were to look at their books they would be able to see just what went where, or what went 'missing'. Iran would be sure to cover something like that up if they did do it, but let's say they wanted to terrorise the world with their 'men', what has come about? Maybe they are trying to delay the peace process in Iraq, but what good would that do them? Iraq is quite far away, and to stall America there wouldn't lead to them benefitting at all, as the war fought there doesn't hold up their sanctions at all, and at the same time keeps Americans in the gulf, where they don't want them to be. Nobody wants the 'enemy' close by to fight them, they would want America away from them if war was imminent.

Iran's navy would take weeks to reach American coasts, and they don't have an army big enough to take the whole country, so what would they gain out of invading America? So they must be looking to fight America where they are, but what sort of tactic is that? Maybe they are looking to nuke America, that would be the thing for them, so keeping an army close by if you want to declare war, and army that is settled, is not a good idea. They would want the peace process to hurry up and then start their nuke thing from far away. Do you think they want to fight a military that is bigger than theirs? What good does slowing down the peace process do them, they would want it enacted quickly so they can begin talks with their neighbour as soon as possible, without the US looking into it with their peacekeepers. The fact that a few hundred more people die is insignificant to any government, so why would they risk the evidence of ties with Al Queda? To slow a peace process that they should want hurried up? I doubt it. To bomb a few schools? I doubt that too. If they are serious then there is a lot more to worry about than a few bombings, look to the sky.

Iran wouldn't want a war with America out in the open, and terrorism is pointless. Leaders would risk being removed if they failed through more 'democracy crusading' by the US, so who wants to risk it all when you sure to be invaded and lose your grip on the country? No dictator would hate another country so much that they would risk losing their claim to power, and any analysis would reveal that this would more likely happen than not, so I can't see why they would 'misbehave' so much.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Charlatan So they have shipped arms to Al Queda, no doubt in exchange for money. That is the key here, money that they recieve.

The United States also provided arms to al-Qaeda-style fighters, back when they were called the Mujahideen. They were led by asses -- zealous ones, but asses nonetheless. I don't know if America achieved the desired effect.

The US is still backing dangerous people:
ROUNDUP: Iraq tightens noose on Shiite cult

Baghdad (dpa) - Iraqi authorities launched more raids Monday in various parts of southern Iraq and rounded up 249 suspected members of a Shiite cult blamed for an outbreak of violence over the weekend, security officials said. In a preemptive operation in Karbala, security forces rounded up nine suspects believed to be linked to a fringe Shiite group known as Soldiers of Heaven, a spokesman for the Karbala police department, Rahman Mashawi, told the Voices of Iraq (VOI) news agency.

Rounding people up is a dangerous game, obviously. Even these simple efforts could spiral out of control. Then, of course, people can badmouth war critics because they "wanted it to happen."

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Rounding people up is a dangerous game, obviously. Even these simple efforts could spiral out of control. Then, of course, people can badmouth war critics because they "wanted it to happen." Grandpa h.

If they don't round these people up, they blow things up. If they do round them up, it's a "dangerous game"...which is the better alternative?

[thx1138]

Well the U.S. sold weapons to Iran and provided arms to the Mujahideen before they changed their name to Al Qaeda.

We're not talking about just some machine guns either they sold missiles. Now no matter how you try to spin it's still true and a fact... but there the good guys right?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval If they don't round these people up, they blow things up. If they do round them up, it's a "dangerous game"...

That's my point, with the caveat that perhaps not everyone they'll round up would have blown something up.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: thx1138 Well the U.S. sold weapons to Iran and provided arms to the Mujahideen before they changed their name to Al Qaeda. We're not talking about just some machine guns either they sold missiles.

As if machine guns wouldn't have been bad enough. And, of course, the US has given much military aid to the Israelis.

Parts of the ISI are apparently linked to Al Qaeda, as well:
Pakistani Intelligence Had Links to Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 - The intelligence service of Pakistan, a crucial American ally in the war on terrorism, has had an indirect but longstanding relationship with Al Qaeda, turning a blind eye for years to the growing ties between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, according to American officials. The intelligence service even used Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train covert operatives for use in a war of terror against India, the Americans say.

Grandpa h.