quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What's your profession/career/job if you don't mind me asking?

I'm pretty sure he works for Freddie Mac

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sigh ... plese not this conspiracy theory again. I'm a history buff, and WW2 is a particular fascination, so what have you got and make sure it's good.

--

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo don't do it TheNobleEu. he'll make you wish you had a better education.

I laughed at the notion "London knew about the attacks," insinuating it was a nonsensical as anyone knowing about Pearl Harbour, or 9-11, or any of a hundred other historical events, where governments claim they knew about an event "but let it happen" for an array of political reasons, insidious or no. As I stated, better for governments to appear somewhat incompetent than totally ineffectual.

I never stated any support or ownership of the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory -- I was mocking it. You people around here need to lay off the E, then go look up the word "context" and possibly also "irony, sarcasm and satire" -- because few of you have any clue what's being said around here most of the time. I agree, "I wish indeed I had a better education" than that of you two, who cherry-pick out one phrase in two paragraphs to comment on, totally misrepresent it, and then respond with subsequent and total irrelevancy.

If you wanna bash a particular theory, mindset, or opinion, go right ahead (and I'll probably enjoy it) -- but don't make such childish efforts to depict someone as holding to a theory you want to flame when they clearly and obviously do not (not just me, I see positions thrust onto people here all the time they don't espouse). Person A decides their goal in posting is to ad hominem person B; person A then says person B thinks Pinochet was really cool and proceeds to flame -- even though person A never said any such thing. This is laughable, grade school tactics and just makes you look intellectually challenged and totally dishonest (OCC, if anyone around here should know better it's you). I cannot breathe for the smoke being generated by the burning straw man armies.

BTW I'm glad however you don't buy the whole "US-knew-about-Pearl-Harbour-and-let-it-happen-to-rally-support-for-US-entry-into-the-War-which-really-wasn't-our-problem." It's generally codified American historical fact by now (where it is simularly better for one's ego to say one knew about it and let it happen then to admit one got a severe thrashing they never saw coming), see the ignorant, patriotism-induced remarks above.

Toodles,
-N

___________________

Join the campaign to ban political sigs in the Political Discussion / Debate forum!

Last edited by TheNobleEu on Aug-08-2005 at 18:52

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What's your profession/career/job if you don't mind me asking?

My offical title is operational risk analyst. And TrancerX was correct about who I work for.

quote:

laughed at the notion "London knew about the attacks," insinuating it was a nonsensical as anyone knowing about Pearl Harbour, or 9-11, or any of a hundred other historical events, where governments claim they knew about an event "but let it happen" for an array of political reasons, insidious or no. As I stated, better for governments to appear somewhat incompetent than totally ineffectual. I never stated any support or ownership of the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory -- I was mocking it. You people around here need to lay off the E, then go look up the word "context" and possibly also "irony, sarcasm and satire" -- because few of you have any clue what's being said around here most of the time. I agree, "I wish indeed I had a better education" than that of you two, who cherry-pick out one phrase in two paragraphs to comment on, totally misrepresent it, and then respond with subsequent and total irrelevancy. If you wanna bash a particular theory, mindset, or opinion, go right ahead (and I'll probably enjoy it) -- but don't make such childish efforts to depict someone as holding to a theory you want to flame when they clearly and obviously do not (not just me, I see positions thrust onto people here all the time they don't espouse). Person A decides their goal in posting is to ad hominem person B; person A then says person B thinks Pinochet was really cool and proceeds to flame -- even though person A never said any such thing. This is laughable, grade school tactics and just makes you look intellectually challenged and totally dishonest (OCC, if anyone around here should know better it's you). I cannot breathe for the smoke being generated by the burning straw man armies. BTW I'm glad however you don't buy the whole "US-knew-about-Pearl-Harbour-and-let-it-happen-to-rally-support-for-US-entry-into-the-War-which-really-wasn't-our-problem." It's generally codified American historical fact by now (where it is simularly better for one's ego to say one knew about it and let it happen then to admit one got a severe thrashing they never saw coming), see the ignorant, patriotism-induced remarks above. Toodles, -N

Huh? You're extremely unclear in your mockery. You said:

quote:

"London knew about attacks?" *cough*PearlHarbour*cough* *cough*9/11*cough*

Which appears to insinuate a correlation between all those events in their nature (the coughing implies obviousness). You then say:

quote:

Comes a time (for some governments, quite often) when it is better to manufacture a situation that makes the government appear simply incompetent, rather than totally ignorant, out-of-touch, and ineffectual. -Noble

Where you equate incompentance on the part of the government (which I agree with) with ... ignorance, out-of-touchness, and ineffecutality ... in other words, incompetance. So how is a reader supposed to infer mockery from your statement as a whole? Once again you seem to assign blame on the reckless misinterpretations of everyone else to understand you when perhaps the error of communication rests on your shoulders? Just a thought.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Blair Knew About London Attacks By Anadolu News Agency (aa) Published: Monday, December 19, 2005 zaman.com For the past two days, Britain’s Tony Blair government has become the new target of heavy criticism over the London subway bomb attacks. After it surfaced that British intelligence had issued a clean report on two individuals who were the suspects in the attacks, The Sunday Times claimed Prime Minister Blair was pre-warned of the bomb attacks that occurred on July 7. The paper reported Blair had turned down a detailed investigation last week since he was afraid of not sufficiently assessing the intelligence information sent to him.

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=internatio...051219&hn=27691

___________________

77 Mind The Gap



For you Brits on the other side of the Pond:
http://www.officialconfusion.com/77/

___________________

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]




http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2771569

___________________

If this were true, how much of a stretch would it be to connect it to other similar events...

Edit: i just finished the video, thats just sick, how can the british people live with all that BS, seriously, any briton here care to enlighten us?

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

Last edited by venomX on Sep-15-2006 at 23:13

Ludicrous Diversion via bt:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:WXDCYLNP4E2B34RNNFNO3SFQZZVKPAZF

or

google B5C62C2DAFE1341DF22D695AEDC8B0CE6AA78325

The torrent was released a month ago and still active.

___________________

Holly ... ... shit!

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture