Pages: 1 2

 

2010-04-30 09:03:30
BLdw
..
+27|5457|M104 "Sombrero"

Turquoise wrote:

For example, had they instead blown up the car of the CEO of say...  Goldman Sachs...  then people would be like...  "Damn...  I actually kind of sympathize with that."   The same could apply for AIG.
Depends. You read here opinions from all around the world and are bound to learn something contradicting all the time. Same is not with vast majority of people, they have their opinions readily handed via main stream news. Often that is their truth, fact and news. Opinion of masses would greatly be influenced by how main stream media started providing news of dead GS-boys. It's down to main stream media to provide an opinion for masses how to feel about it.

Of course if you talk about blowing just a car and nobody in there. That would hardly have any influence. Maybe momentary nodding amongst public.

Turquoise wrote:

Granted, I realize the terrorists have no interest in getting us to side with them.
I'm fairly sure that neither of us knows what "terrorists" exactly want. I'm also quite sure that Osama didn't blow up WTC for same reasons as some wackos are blowing up innocent school girls and gardeners.

Last edited by BLdw (2010-04-30 09:04:46)

2010-05-01 16:24:16
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

BLdw wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

For example, had they instead blown up the car of the CEO of say...  Goldman Sachs...  then people would be like...  "Damn...  I actually kind of sympathize with that."   The same could apply for AIG.
Depends. You read here opinions from all around the world and are bound to learn something contradicting all the time. Same is not with vast majority of people, they have their opinions readily handed via main stream news. Often that is their truth, fact and news. Opinion of masses would greatly be influenced by how main stream media started providing news of dead GS-boys. It's down to main stream media to provide an opinion for masses how to feel about it.

Of course if you talk about blowing just a car and nobody in there. That would hardly have any influence. Maybe momentary nodding amongst public.
Touche...

BLdw wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Granted, I realize the terrorists have no interest in getting us to side with them.
I'm fairly sure that neither of us knows what "terrorists" exactly want. I'm also quite sure that Osama didn't blow up WTC for same reasons as some wackos are blowing up innocent school girls and gardeners.
Those two sentences sort of contradict each other....
2010-05-02 06:54:13
BLdw
..
+27|5457|M104 "Sombrero"

Turquoise wrote:

BLdw wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Granted, I realize the terrorists have no interest in getting us to side with them.
I'm fairly sure that neither of us knows what "terrorists" exactly want. I'm also quite sure that Osama didn't blow up WTC for same reasons as some wackos are blowing up innocent school girls and gardeners.
Those two sentences sort of contradict each other....
Hmm... quite true, heh. Somehow I found connection between the two but failed to recognize the contradiction there. My logic just fails

But let's put it this way: Targeting stadiums and skyscrapers instead of WTC, pentagon, (WH) had been better option if Osama wanted to have as many civilian victims as possible. So, to some extend we can assume he was trying to target the US "oppress facilities", not innocent people. But this is just "wild guessing", we don't know it for sure -- and our media is obviously quite biased about this whole subject (after all we have is (or mainly) news from our point of view around this subject).

Someone suicide bombing school girls, shoppers, etc. (basically innocent civilians who have nothing do to with... anything?) have their own agenda in mind. We can assume they don't want to have same kind of life over there as we have here, but yet again, this is nothing more than "wild guessing". We don't really know it.

Our media tends to label these suicide bombers and Osama in to the same category of terrorists, even when they seem to "fight" for different reasons and against different targets. Very rarely we opportunity to hear their (terrorists) opinions and their reasons for what they do... and why they do that. Every now and then there might be some extremists telling us how they hate US, West, world, universe (etc.) and how they go all jihad and crazy against us. But what are the reasons they would do that? They hate our freedom? At least Osama said in some of his video tapes that he doesn't hate our freedom. I don't know about other terrorists.

The problem here seems to be that we (public) don't actually know what terrorists want, or why they want what they want (it is likely possible there are people out there who actually know what they want...). All we do is assume from the news they feed us. Other problem is that we get our news mainly from same source(s): he's that Western general, professor, politician, etc. telling us how things are. That's very one sided, no matter what news source tells us that.

We can always question, though.
2010-05-02 15:24:08
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
Good points...  for the record, I also consider Al Quida and the Taliban very different in their motivations and dangers.

The Taliban is negotiable, because all they really seem interested in is maintaining power over the areas they currently reside in.

Al Quida is more of an ideological group, because they won't stop attacking until their much more all-encompassing goals are met.
2010-05-03 06:48:16
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6811|South Florida

ATG wrote:

Monday's lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court accused Goldman of making materially false and misleading statements about an Abacus collateralized debt obligation tied to subprime mortgages that regulators say it created and marketed though it was designed to lose money.


So, this is not an opinion of some distressed homeowner. The federal regulators said, and I post it again; it created and marketed though it was designed to lose money.



Those cock suckers created the bubble and they popped it.
Everyday that goes by that these vampires are not broken up is another day of injustice.



They fucked over millions of people and entire nations.








http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provid … d=11449890
No shit it was created to fail, thus causing a "depression" thus causing big companies to fail, resulting finally in government bailouts for part ownership
15 more years! 15 more years!
2010-05-03 06:56:32
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6811|South Florida

BLdw wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

BLdw wrote:


I'm fairly sure that neither of us knows what "terrorists" exactly want. I'm also quite sure that Osama didn't blow up WTC for same reasons as some wackos are blowing up innocent school girls and gardeners.
Those two sentences sort of contradict each other....
Hmm... quite true, heh. Somehow I found connection between the two but failed to recognize the contradiction there. My logic just fails

But let's put it this way: Targeting stadiums and skyscrapers instead of WTC, pentagon, (WH) had been better option if the government wanted to have as many civilian victims as possible. So, to some extend we can assume they were trying to target important buildings which represented the US", and some innocent people. But this is just "wild guessing", we don't know it for sure, but science seems to show that the WTC buildings shouldn't have fallen, all the gold was coincedentally taken out of them, stocks on AA fluctuated greatly, the air force just happened to fail for the first time in like all of history, building 7 just caught on fire for no reason it wasnt even hit, there was no sign of a plane hitting the pentagon and according to the official release all the plane material had disintegrated besides one engine which photographs and professionals say did not even come from the model plane that supposedly hit the pent. -- and our media is obviously quite biased about this whole subject considering they're controlled by the government (after all we have is (or mainly) news from our point of view around this subject, and those in charge LOVE that fact.).
There i fixed your post.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2010-05-03 06:58:53
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6754

Mitch wrote:

BLdw wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Those two sentences sort of contradict each other....
Hmm... quite true, heh. Somehow I found connection between the two but failed to recognize the contradiction there. My logic just fails

But let's put it this way: Targeting stadiums and skyscrapers instead of WTC, pentagon, (WH) had been better option if the government wanted to have as many civilian victims as possible. So, to some extend we can assume they were trying to target important buildings which represented the US", and some innocent people. But this is just "wild guessing", we don't know it for sure, but science seems to show that the WTC buildings shouldn't have fallen, all the gold was coincedentally taken out of them, stocks on AA fluctuated greatly, the air force just happened to fail for the first time in like all of history, building 7 just caught on fire for no reason it wasnt even hit, there was no sign of a plane hitting the pentagon and according to the official release all the plane material had disintegrated besides one engine which photographs and professionals say did not even come from the model plane that supposedly hit the pent. -- and our media is obviously quite biased about this whole subject considering they're controlled by the government (after all we have is (or mainly) news from our point of view around this subject, and those in charge LOVE that fact.).
There i proved that I'm a moron, a follower and a tool.
OH HAI!
2010-05-03 07:00:01
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6811|South Florida

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Mitch wrote:

BLdw wrote:


Hmm... quite true, heh. Somehow I found connection between the two but failed to recognize the contradiction there. My logic just fails

But let's put it this way: Targeting stadiums and skyscrapers instead of WTC, pentagon, (WH) had been better option if the government wanted to have as many civilian victims as possible. So, to some extend we can assume they were trying to target important buildings which represented the US", and some innocent people. But this is just "wild guessing", we don't know it for sure, but science seems to show that the WTC buildings shouldn't have fallen, all the gold was coincedentally taken out of them, stocks on AA fluctuated greatly, the air force just happened to fail for the first time in like all of history, building 7 just caught on fire for no reason it wasnt even hit, there was no sign of a plane hitting the pentagon and according to the official release all the plane material had disintegrated besides one engine which photographs and professionals say did not even come from the model plane that supposedly hit the pent. -- and our media is obviously quite biased about this whole subject considering they're controlled by the government (after all we have is (or mainly) news from our point of view around this subject, and those in charge LOVE that fact.).
There i proved that I'm a moron, a follower and a tool.
OH HAI!
How am i a follower if im saying what the majority isn't saying? It's people like you who are the reason the truth never gets taken seriously.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2010-05-03 07:23:55
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6754

Mitch wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Mitch wrote:


There i proved that I'm a moron, a follower and a tool.
OH HAI!
How am i a follower if im saying what the majority isn't saying? It's people like you who are the reason the truth never gets taken seriously.
No, you are following what you're told to follow. Did you conclude for yourself that Gee-Dubya did 9/11?

Or was it some unemployed college drop-outs who did it for you?



You are weak Mitch, you are nothing.
2010-05-03 08:08:51
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6811|South Florida

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:


OH HAI!
How am i a follower if im saying what the majority isn't saying? It's people like you who are the reason the truth never gets taken seriously.
No, you are following what you're told to follow. Did you conclude for yourself that Gee-Dubya did 9/11?

Or was it some unemployed college drop-outs who did it for you?



You are weak Mitch, you are nothing.
I didn't say GW did 9/11
I follow the facts. There's so many people in the 9/11 truth movement, you dont understand. You still think its just a couple conspiracy theorists still.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2010-05-03 11:30:05
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6815|Global Command
Don't bother Mitch. Think of all the idiots who believe Oswald shot Kennedy in the back of the head.

M
O
R
O
N
S

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard