Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Did America bring 9/11 on itself. It backed the Mujahideem against the Russians, used a very wealthy, very intelligent, media savvy warrior as a leader of this. Do you simply throw away a man like that and expect no consequences?

As a result of Osama Bin Laden's actions America and it's allies embarked on a war it could not win in the graveyard of empires and like so many others before it is leaving with its tail between its legs.

The war has had huge financial cost on the western world, at least in part leading to the financial crisis in the U.S.

Furthermore, the people of the west have been locked down through the use of this threat by their elites.

Who really has come out of this as a winner? What freedoms have you lost?

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty in' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

Originally posted by Turkey Pie
Did America bring 9/11 on itself. It backed the Mujahideem against the Russians, used a very wealthy, very intelligent, media savvy warrior as a leader of this. Do you simply throw away a man like that and expect no consequences?

Osama Bin Laden wasn't the leader of the Mujahadeen, his fighters didn't really receive that much support from America, and they didn't really contribute much to the defeat of the Soviets. This whole "America created Bin Laden" story is a big myth.

Originally posted by Turkey Pie
Do you simply throw away a man like that and expect no consequences?

you mean as happened throughout most of Eastern Europe and Central/South America?

How many Nicaraguan Bin Ladens do you think there might have been? Hell, thats almost like suggesting Che and Castro were going to attack Russia.

Originally posted by Turkey Pie
What freedoms have you lost?

all of the freedoms

Yeah, that's another thing, we didn't "throw away" Bin Laden, and he would have gone after America even if we'd never intervened in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
we didn't "throw away" Bin Laden

very true. People seem to have the idea that he was a direct CIA asset at the time. Hell, he wasn't even a Saudi asset at the time; most of the Royal Family was happy he wasn't still in the kingdom (and after the war he moved to Yemen because the Saudis weren't particularly interested in having a jihadi recruiter/financier with military experience living in their nation).

The freedom to not be publicly groped every time I want to travel by air. Sometimes they take me in the back and strip me, once they even performed a colonoscopy to make sure I didn't have a bomb up my ass!

At least, that's what they told me the reason was. The truth is that I'm just a devilishly handsome white male and the security guards were very lonely.

Exactly three freedoms.

this thread is probably being monitored

"Freedom? That is a worship word. You will not speak it."

Originally posted by Oliver North
very true. People seem to have the idea that he was a direct CIA asset at the time. Hell, he wasn't even a Saudi asset at the time; most of the Royal Family was happy he wasn't still in the kingdom (and after the war he moved to Yemen because the Saudis weren't particularly interested in having a jihadi recruiter/financier with military experience living in their nation).

Lol at the use of "asset". As if the state of any "asset" can truly be known outside of the intelligence community. You amuse me.

Originally posted by Turkey Pie
Lol at the use of "asset".

isn't that the actual term though?

Originally posted by Turkey Pie
As if the state of any "asset" can truly be known outside of the intelligence community.

fair point, though in both The Looming Tower by Lawrence Right, and Taliban by Ahmed Rashid (the latter having the distinction of being published in the months prior to 9/11) Bin Laden's role in the conflict is diminished, and for a number of reasons, while it may be true that somehow, through his own connections, got his hands on some CIA money or equipment, because he was an Arab he couldn't get support through the ISI, who were the primary channel through which American funded the Muj. I've never seen anything that supports Bin Laden being a CIA asset, do you have any evidence?

Originally posted by Turkey Pie
You amuse me.

thanks

Originally posted by Oliver North
isn't that the actual term though?



fair point, though in both The Looming Tower by Lawrence Right, and Taliban by Ahmed Rashid (the latter having the distinction of being published in the months prior to 9/11) Bin Laden's role in the conflict is diminished, and for a number of reasons, while it may be true that somehow, through his own connections, got his hands on some CIA money or equipment, because he was an Arab he couldn't get support through the ISI, who were the primary channel through which American funded the Muj. I've never seen anything that supports Bin Laden being a CIA asset, do you have any evidence?



thanks

I have no evidence he is a CIA asset, however, if I was in the Intelligence business it would seem sensible to spread disinformation about someone who people believe may or may not be your creation, if indeed they were your creation.

As for asset, who knows I have seen it used in films over the last twenty years. However prior to that, not really was it art imitating life, vice versa or neither.

Will we ever know, do we really know why the BBC broadcast the event before it happened?

Originally posted by Turkey Pie
do we really know why the BBC broadcast the event before it happened?

which event?

Originally posted by Oliver North
which event?

9/11

I don't know that the events of 9/11 have cost Americans to lose any freedoms. We have certainly lost luxuries though. American citizens are being monitored and profiled much more since 9/11. However, privacy was never a freedom we had. We may have and have had a greater since of personal privacy due to freedom but we still have all the freedoms we did before 9/11. Some freedoms may be under threat of change, but they're still there. The profiling and surveillance monitoring was always going to end up in the state that it has become. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing either.

It must have cost us anywhere from 9 to 11 freedoms.

Originally posted by Turkey Pie
Will we ever know, do we really know why the BBC broadcast the event before it happened?

Did you know there's a bit of a time delay between the U.S. and Europe? So, like, if something happened here in New York around 9:00am, the BBC could easily have footage and be broadcasting it by about 4:30am their time, making it appear like the BBC had footage before it actually happened. And that's assuming they even did that.

So unless they broadcast it like a week before I wouldn't think it's such a major conspiracy proving thing.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Did you know there's a bit of a time delay between the U.S. and Europe? So, like, if something happened here in New York around 9:00am, the BBC could easily have footage and be broadcasting it by about 4:30am their time, making it appear like the BBC had footage before it actually happened. And that's assuming they even did that.

So unless they broadcast it like a week before I wouldn't think it's such a major conspiracy proving thing.

You are absolutely right! I have a friend in Africa, and we joke about him being in my future.

Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Did you know there's a bit of a time delay between the U.S. and Europe? So, like, if something happened here in New York around 9:00am, the BBC could easily have footage and be broadcasting it by about 4:30am their time, making it appear like the BBC had footage before it actually happened. And that's assuming they even did that.

So unless they broadcast it like a week before I wouldn't think it's such a major conspiracy proving thing.

well, the issue isn't that BBC broadcast "9-11" before it happened, they said tower 7 collapsed before it actually had. They have apologized for the mistake, and their explanation is essentially: "everyone knew, for hours, that tower 7 was going to come down, and Reuters picked up an incorrect report that it had, which was then reported by the BBC". Reuters did make this report, but it had come from a completely non-confirmed source who took the claim down almost immediately after posting it.

Basically, in all the chaos, Reuters repeated something that everyone was expecting, though from a dubious source, which BBC then reported. All in all, pretty mundane. Unless one believes the Illuminati is in the business of putting out press releases...

Originally posted by Oliver North
well, the issue isn't that BBC broadcast "9-11" before it happened, they said tower 7 collapsed before it actually had. They have apologized for the mistake, and their explanation is essentially: "everyone knew, for hours, that tower 7 was going to come down, and Reuters picked up an incorrect report that it had, which was then reported by the BBC". Reuters did make this report, but it had come from a completely non-confirmed source who took the claim down almost immediately after posting it.

Basically, in all the chaos, Reuters repeated something that everyone was expecting, though from a dubious source, which BBC then reported. All in all, pretty mundane. Unless one believes the Illuminati is in the business of putting out press releases...

The Illuminati are in the business of everything....

Originally posted by Turkey Pie
Did America bring 9/11 on itself. It backed the Mujahideem against the Russians, used a very wealthy, very intelligent, media savvy warrior as a leader of this. Do you simply throw away a man like that and expect no consequences?

As a result of Osama Bin Laden's actions America and it's allies embarked on a war it could not win in the graveyard of empires and like so many others before it is leaving with its tail between its legs.

The war has had huge financial cost on the western world, at least in part leading to the financial crisis in the U.S.

Furthermore, the people of the west have been locked down through the use of this threat by their elites.

Who really has come out of this as a winner? What freedoms have you lost?

we lost what little chance we ever had of being a free country again when the patriot act was signed.

as long as we have this corrupt two party system of demopublicans and reprocrats,"a one party system designed to look like two so the sheople of americans think they have a choice in their elections,"we will always be living here in the wonderful police states of america.

the war that most american dont want has devastad the economy with the government lying to americans ssaying its improving when its really getting worse and worse,thanks to Bushwacker and Obomination.they are suppose to be opposite partys and have different views yet before his inaguration, Obama said he would reverse Bush's patriot act and vote against it when he became president so what does the facist commie do? He goes and signs it to REINSTATE it.

where all that hope and change he promised? all he has done is expand and accelerate what Bushwacker got started.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
we lost what little chance we ever had of being a free country again when the patriot act was signed.


While this point has some merit, the rest is slippery slope.

Besides having an eye in the sky watching your every move, NSA listening and reading our every text if they wanted to, everything that you look at on your computer and TV being monitered by a third party and GPSs tagged to us tracking our every location around the USA. I would say we only lost our privacy.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
we lost what little chance we ever had of being a free country again when the patriot act was signed.

as long as we have this corrupt two party system of demopublicans and reprocrats,"a one party system designed to look like two so the sheople of americans think they have a choice in their elections,"we will always be living here in the wonderful police states of america.

the war that most american dont want has devastad the economy with the government lying to americans ssaying its improving when its really getting worse and worse,thanks to Bushwacker and Obomination.they are suppose to be opposite partys and have different views yet before his inaguration, Obama said he would reverse Bush's patriot act and vote against it when he became president so what does the facist commie do? He goes and signs it to REINSTATE it.

where all that hope and change he promised? all he has done is expand and accelerate what Bushwacker got started.
When people use the words "fascist" and "commie" together they demonstrate that they understand the meaning of neither.

Am I the only one who doesn't have a problem with NSA surveillance. I mean, so what. They find I'm watching porn on my computer. Is that an arrestable offense? The only people afraid of govt. surveillance are the people who have things to hide from the government. It's not like if you gossip about a friend over the phone, the NSA will record your call and then tell your friend. Your secrets aren't being disclosed. I just don't see the privacy violation.

I think it is a mentality from 1984, in which police dominance was established through surveillance. While it may be true that Ingsoc had a large surveillance system, it is not the Telescreens that gave them their power. It will require far more than a NSA surveillance system to turn the US into the Stalinist dictatorship everybody thinks it's turning into.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Am I the only one who doesn't have a problem with NSA surveillance. I mean, so what. They find I'm watching porn on my computer. Is that an arrestable offense? The only people afraid of govt. surveillance are the people who have things to hide from the government. It's not like if you gossip about a friend over the phone, the NSA will record your call and then tell your friend. Your secrets aren't being disclosed. I just don't see the privacy violation.

I think it is a mentality from 1984, in which police dominance was established through surveillance. While it may be true that Ingsoc had a large surveillance system, it is not the Telescreens that gave them their power. It will require far more than a NSA surveillance system to turn the US into the Stalinist dictatorship everybody thinks it's turning into.

I think people are worried because police states are invariably run by criminals who remain immune to the law and things that this country ideally stands for - political freedom and individual rights - may cease under a different regime. The Patriot Act removed the right to trial and allows indefinite detention for anyone presumed to be a suspect in terrorism, usually outside of the country in 'black sites'. This also allows the NSA to invade your private correspondence with the assumption that it prevents terrorism. People have all sorts of personal information available in their emails, from intimate communications to loved ones, passwords and credit card receipts, bank info, etc.

Let's put it this way: it's okay for the government to listen in on your calls, receive your text and email without a warrant specific to any wrong-doing on your part, but if a regular person perused your mail from your mailbox, he'd serve five years in a federal prison.

We are not in such dire danger every day that personal privacy should be null and void.

I understand what you are saying, the system has a lot of potential for abuse, but has it been abused. Has an NSA employee, a politician, etc. ever abused the surveillance system for their own gain? Have they arrested anybody just because the NSA found out that they have dissenting views about the govt.?

I also see what you are saying here but IDK if it is applicable. When a "regular person" hacks your information, they are usually looking to steal from you or damage your system. The NSA just looks at your email, sees if there is anything terrorist-relevant, and if not...that's it. They aren't looking to defraud you like a "regular person" would, so saying it is an equivalent "crime" is a mistake IMO.

How is your privacy being violated? What could you do in private before that you can't now? How will the government persecute you just because they heard your phone call?

Originally posted by Lestov16
I understand what you are saying, the system has a lot of potential for abuse, but has it been abused. Has an NSA employee, a politician, etc. ever abused the surveillance system for their own gain? Have they arrested anybody just because the NSA found out that they have dissenting views about the govt.?

Any time your information is compromised, a problem is evident. After all, if a private contractor like Snowden can get all this government access despite being relatively low on the totem pole, who's to say information that can compromise you personally is safe? While perfect online safety is a pipe-dream, my point is that this scouring of knowledge is both warrant-less (and therefore violates my right against unreasonable search and seizure) and potentially a risk for ID theft by some disgruntled or particularly stupid employee. God help you if an ex works at NSA or for them.



Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Whether or not a crime is being committed, the point remains the government should not go looking for it in my personal communications for the same reason why evidence found without a warrant is not admissible in court. Violation of due-process. Additionally, this is not specified searching but mass-searching, like dragging a fish net through the water.



Actually, the point is on what basis could they detain me and charge me based solely on what they've heard? If I say "this government sucks, those fatcats on the hill ought to be shot. My benefits got cut, blah blah blah Obamacare blah blah hope someone frags them in their sleep", does this mean I get formally charged for what are probably blowing off steam comments meant to a friend? Can I end up in some black site being waterboarded until I break down and confess to my imaginary crimes to just make the pain stop?

That's a huge ethical concern.

I am a Salafist terrorist and I plan to blow up every city school in my district 5 hours from now by using kiddie suicide bombers with C4 in their backpacks.


Come at me, US government

Uh...

Nice knowing you bro. Gonna hide before the feds track me behind my eight proxies.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
...
Actually, the point is on what basis could they detain me and charge me based solely on what they've heard? If I say "this government sucks, those fatcats on the hill ought to be shot. My benefits got cut, blah blah blah Obamacare blah blah hope someone frags them in their sleep", does this mean I get formally charged for what are probably blowing off steam comments meant to a friend? Can I end up in some black site being waterboarded until I break down and confess to my imaginary crimes to just make the pain stop?

That's a huge ethical concern.

Actually yes. Well, I really don't know, but I think it would be best if you pack your bags and get out of town. They are coming for you, Leo...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
When people use the words "fascist" and "commie" together they demonstrate that they understand the meaning of neither. Evidently you've never been under attack by Commie Nazis.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u153/mistersite/commienazis.jpg

My grandmother used to swear that Nazis were Communist, and she worked in the Army as a secretary post-WWII. Some people just love their ignorance.

The Nazis were Communist agents who sacrificed themselves in order to start a war that would make the Soviet Union super powerful. #obviousfactfornotstoopidppl.

Sounds legit.

The first step in war is the dehumanization of the enemy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The first step in war is the dehumanization of the enemy. Not true, the first step is jailing Pussy Riot.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not true, the first step is jailing Pussy Riot.

For hooliganism. A guy today was arrested in Red Square for nailing his 'sack to the ground in protest as well. Let's play "Guess the Gulag Location" with him next.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not true, the first step is jailing Pussy Riot.

Have you heard their music?

This just in: Shaky advocates labor camps for bad musicians.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This just in: Shaky advocates labor camps for bad musicians.

Wow! That's a great idea! I hope you realize that I have five music CD's under my belt.

Time to post them so your fate can be decided!

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Time to post them so your fate can be decided!

Look next to my sig!