[quote]tme wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
I am not talking occupation, but just imagine how fast we could clear Al Qeada and there Taliban allies if we had 500,000 troops over there. [/quote]
Only 500,000 troops? No problem. Because borrowing from China to fully occupy a foreign country doesn’t have any real effect on the deficit. Only domestic spending on things like health care impact the deficit.
Right? I’m sure Mr. Paul would agree with you on that one.
[/quote]
Nice. And true!
[quote]Valor wrote:
would make it impossiable to keep secret. And if they COULD…there’s no point worrying about it. Cause we’re done.
[/quote]
I don’t feel this way. If it COULD be proved (the ‘false flag’ theory), I would hope the ‘people’ would make sure those responsible were hung and left to rot.
And I don’t think we would be done. We have more power than we give ourselves credit for.
[quote]Valor wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]spurlock wrote:
I find the whole 911 situation extremely interesting, but probably not for the reasons most others do.
I like observing the reactions of people in response to the numerous stories out there about what happened. It makes me wonder how the reactions of the Reichstag fire were in comparison; and just think if the German’s had the Internet to discuss their beliefs about what happened!
Reactions to stimuli always interest me than more the actual subject because they tell me more about the person (on a micro level) and this society (on the macro). Anger, wit and arrogance are generally the result of a perceived threat to a person’s reality. Pretty scary stuff really. If the stories you were told over and over by the priests of ‘official information’ do not coincide with those someone is now telling you; if you have internalized the first story as true, then the conflicting one(s) is sure to set you off. After all, not too many people like to be told their perception of reality is not the one someone else sees!
It reinforces one of my beliefs regarding people and society/civilization, in that, monopolization of information and attempted perceptive homogenization is destroying our collective ability to have healthy discourse. Sure we can have its toxic mimic; as we see here on the internet or in the bars (which are really the only two places groups of people have intellectual discussion/debate). But, real, healthy conversations and debate are a rarity. [/quote]
Wow. Thought provoking post in a website that rarely produces such. Really wow.
[/quote]
There is no debate with a person who thinks 2+2=9. You can get some shiney objects out and try to explain it to him, like you would a child or maybe a retard…but after that you just have to lead him over to his little corner of the room and let him drool on himself.
I wont even deal with the “evidence” that 9-11 was an inside job…all of which has been debunked at length…I’ll just say this: IF…IF some all powerful, behind the curtain, magic elf loving, group of black suited, sunglass wearing, black van driving power mongers…did indeed bring those towers…the number of people involved, all with differant intrests, would make it impossiable to keep secret. And if they COULD…there’s no point worrying about it. Cause we’re done.
[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about 9/11 being an inside job? I never said anything of the sort. I merely stated facts and asked questions, maybe gave an inference or two. I never stated any theory or explanation.
Your mentioning some “inside job”. I am unfamiliar with this. Have you any ideas to share?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Back to the title of the thread:
We have lost Afghanistan when we have not made the commitment to win.
This was true in Vietnam.
This is true in football.
This is true in bodybuilding/powerlifting/strongman/fighting sports.
This is true in life.[/quote]
We never lost Afghanistan(nor did we ever have a chance to win) because we were never fighting a war.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
No… no i don’t believe it did get hot enough for a collapse at the impact zone.
[/quote]
If you can accept the word of a guy who originally didn’t understand the NIST’s collapse mechanisms, thus having to produce another rainbow colored webpage to save face, you should eat these up. [/quote]
I’d love to have the same thinking as you. To be able to dismiss things i do not wish to understand. However it is not in my nature to do so. I would love for you to prove this article wrong but it would take just that. You actually proving it wrong. Your attempt at humor is not an acceptable replacement for logic.
Whether or not i agree with the article or any of the other facts I’ve shared I find it very telling that many of you are saying the ideas I have presented to you from other sources to be ridiculous, yet you cannot intelligently debate them. It is very telling that you and a couple others have instead dismissed the facts, tried to sidestep them with humor, or claim them to already be debunked. If anything i posted is debunked please provide me with the evidence. Like i said i have no personal stake in this. I’m merely asking questions and sharing some of the work others have done. Prove them wrong.
Win what, pusshy?
How could we have lost when the objective was never defined in the first place? We went in there with no clear objective and no exit strategy, so how is it not simply disingenuous for you to declare that we’ve “lost”?
This isn’t football or any other type of sport, so the comparison is idiotic and extremely simplistic (note to self: consider the source). In any competition there is a defined goal: score more points, lift more weight, run faster, jump higher, usually within a given time period. What was the goal in Afghanistan? When does the clock run out on that?
Bush’s “GWOT” was doomed to fail no matter what, because it was left undefined and open ended. So if occupying Afghanistan indefinitely until someone says “I win” is all it takes, then we can just say “I win” and go home, right?
LOL! Where did all this come from. I am simply stating a fact here. We are not at war with Afghanistan. Lets not make this personal. I assure you I did not mean to hurt your feelings. Also,
Yes I did fight a war when I played football.
Yes I do fight a war training and competing in bodybuild/powerlift/strongman/martial arts.
Yes I am fighting a war in my personal life.
Don’t project your defeatist attitude. We never went to war with Afghanistan OR Vietnam and both conflicts had similar results and beginnings. And while your “fucking 09ers” line might give yourself a chuckle it does not make your “arguments”, if you can call them that, any more intelligent or “right”.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
No… no i don’t believe it did get hot enough for a collapse at the impact zone.
[/quote]
If you can accept the word of a guy who originally didn’t understand the NIST’s collapse mechanisms, thus having to produce another rainbow colored webpage to save face, you should eat these up. [/quote]
I’d love to have the same thinking as you. To be able to dismiss things i do not wish to understand. However it is not in my nature to do so. I would love for you to prove this article wrong but it would take just that. You actually proving it wrong. Your attempt at humor is not an acceptable replacement for logic.
Whether or not i agree with the article or any of the other facts I’ve shared I find it very telling that many of you are saying the ideas I have presented to you from other sources to be ridiculous, yet you cannot intelligently debate them. It is very telling that you and a couple others have instead dismissed the facts, tried to sidestep them with humor, or claim them to already be debunked. If anything i posted is debunked please provide me with the evidence. Like i said i have no personal stake in this. I’m merely asking questions and sharing some of the work others have done. Prove them wrong.
[/quote]
You want me to prove the lunar landing happened, too? If you can read two rainbow colored web pages, where some dude on the internent ‘proves’ the government story is a lie (after botching what tje government story is, in the first attempt), I’m sure the quest for troofiness will get you through my links.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
No… no i don’t believe it did get hot enough for a collapse at the impact zone.
[/quote]
If you can accept the word of a guy who originally didn’t understand the NIST’s collapse mechanisms, thus having to produce another rainbow colored webpage to save face, you should eat these up. [/quote]
I’d love to have the same thinking as you. To be able to dismiss things i do not wish to understand. However it is not in my nature to do so. I would love for you to prove this article wrong but it would take just that. You actually proving it wrong. Your attempt at humor is not an acceptable replacement for logic.
Whether or not i agree with the article or any of the other facts I’ve shared I find it very telling that many of you are saying the ideas I have presented to you from other sources to be ridiculous, yet you cannot intelligently debate them. It is very telling that you and a couple others have instead dismissed the facts, tried to sidestep them with humor, or claim them to already be debunked. If anything i posted is debunked please provide me with the evidence. Like i said i have no personal stake in this. I’m merely asking questions and sharing some of the work others have done. Prove them wrong.
[/quote]
You want me to prove the lunar landing happened, too? If you can read two rainbow colored web pages, where some dude on the internent ‘proves’ the government story is a lie (after botching what the government story is, in the first attempt), I’m sure the quest for troofiness will get you through my links. [/quote]
Your confusing proving an event, with refuting scientific facts. Such as the failing point of steel under a certain temperature and the temperature at which jet fuel burns. Please refute the scientific evidence provided in the article and stop with your off topic, irrelevant comparisons.
And those articles were published else where and merely borrowed by that website. The website is irrelevant and so is your attack on it. Stay on topic.
Since we are now going TRUTHER I find myself having to face palm this thread.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
LOL! Where did all this come from. I am simply stating a fact here. We are not at war with Afghanistan. Lets not make this personal. I assure you I did not mean to hurt your feelings. Also,
Yes I did fight a war when I played football.
Yes I do fight a war training and competing in bodybuild/powerlift/strongman/martial arts.
Yes I am fighting a war in my personal life.
Don’t project your defeatist attitude. We never went to war with Afghanistan OR Vietnam and both conflicts had similar results and beginnings. And while your “fucking 09ers” line might give yourself a chuckle it does not make your “arguments”, if you can call them that, any more intelligent or right.[/quote]
You need to start paying attention. Leave Suzie’s bra strap alone, sit up in your chair and keep your eyes and ears on the blackboard.[/quote]
You have proved yourself time and time again unable to provide an intelligent argument. This has been one sided with me providing facts and articles and you providing your humor. Your humor has ceased to get a laugh out of me so I’m done replying to you until you can say something intelligent.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Since we are now going TRUTHER I find myself having to face palm this thread.
[/quote]
Ok John S. you’ve gotten me curious. Assuming this is relevant, what is “TRUTHER” and why is it “face palm” invoking. Also why the hell did you capitalize it, simply for emphasis or what?
You brought in the jet fuel not being hot enough to melt the steel. So you obviously think it was an inside job. That requires a face palm, and now this thread needs to die.
Edit*
You may think you are bringing in facts that we can’t debate, but what you fail to understand is we have debated this for a long time, and now we just make jokes about it.
Search function is your friend.
What the hell? I never implied anything of the sort. Like i keep saying I’m only posting the scientific findings of others. Is that what this “TRUTHER” thing is about? And further more why would this “TRUTHER” idea require the burial of a thread. Is it so utterly impossible that it needs to end a thread? Please explain the “TRUTHER” idea and then explain in equal detail all the reasons why it must be wrong. You have my attention.
Edit: Oh you have debated it before? GREAT! You’ll have all the facts and reasoning all prepared. Enlighten me on this “TRUTHER” idea and why it must be wrong. Copy and paste from this old debate if you must.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
No… no i don’t believe it did get hot enough for a collapse at the impact zone.
[/quote]
If you can accept the word of a guy who originally didn’t understand the NIST’s collapse mechanisms, thus having to produce another rainbow colored webpage to save face, you should eat these up. [/quote]
I’d love to have the same thinking as you. To be able to dismiss things i do not wish to understand. However it is not in my nature to do so. I would love for you to prove this article wrong but it would take just that. You actually proving it wrong. Your attempt at humor is not an acceptable replacement for logic.
Whether or not i agree with the article or any of the other facts I’ve shared I find it very telling that many of you are saying the ideas I have presented to you from other sources to be ridiculous, yet you cannot intelligently debate them. It is very telling that you and a couple others have instead dismissed the facts, tried to sidestep them with humor, or claim them to already be debunked. If anything i posted is debunked please provide me with the evidence. Like i said i have no personal stake in this. I’m merely asking questions and sharing some of the work others have done. Prove them wrong.
[/quote]
You want me to prove the lunar landing happened, too? If you can read two rainbow colored web pages, where some dude on the internent ‘proves’ the government story is a lie (after botching what the government story is, in the first attempt), I’m sure the quest for troofiness will get you through my links. [/quote]
Your confusing proving an event, with refuting scientific facts. Such as the failing point of steel under a certain temperature and the temperature at which jet fuel burns. Please refute the scientific evidence provided in the article and stop with your off topic, irrelevant comparisons. [/quote]
If you were looking for answers based in science and engineering, you’d be too busy viewing the NIST site to continue this nonsense. You posted a friggen link that didn’t even get the NIST conclusion correct, yet you think I should entertain you? Read the links, or hold to this laughable position. Your reputation isn’t my concern. My experience with you folks has involved rapid debunking of your claims. You know what this gets me? More ridiculous claims. Not once have one of you said, “Gee, if they got those things wrong, maybe I should be skeptical of my conspiracy theorist cult leaders.”