911, A couple things.
In my english class today my prof brought in an article by the well known American author Gore Vidal. He has done a lot of research into the US's foreign activities and political actions. Besides talking about a lot of CIA action in Panama, Chile and other countries it also talked about the U.S.'s plans which eventually caused 911.


The US was planning on going into Afghanistan in OCOTOBER to take control of the oil in the middle east. The "terrorists" in the middle east figured this out and preemptively attacked the US. I use the term middle east NOT afghanistan because....
12 out of the 16 involved terrorists were SAUDIS not AFGHANS. :jambo:

The US just sprayed afghanistan all over the place because a) they wanted to use afghan for the above reason of the oil "wars", and b) they were apparantely allies witht he Saudis.

What you may or may not see from what i said (which was wrong) was calling the "terrorists" saudis or afghans, they were neither, they were simply tools... they don't represent afghan peopel or saudi people. But to the US this iwas a great chance to make themselves look good and powerful and be in control of yet another country.

The US had gone one step farther though. They set up the TALIBAN (years ago) in the first place to do the dirty work for them... but they didn't ... well turn out so well, so the US was ready to go in themselves (October).


This may or may not be new/believable info to you.. it's not presented to you on TV so it's a little less believable ... i found it an interesting possibility however. THought i'd share it.


ps. 3,000 people died in the 911 attacks... and it wasn't unprovoked at all. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Hiroshima, also not unprovoked. Just because the US seems to only do what's right and what's heroic, doesn't mean that's all that's going on. It's very easy to withhold things. I'm sure our non northamerican friends who follow the news know more about what happened than us NA's.

i think your right to a degree. Bin laden is Saudi, and this goes back to the Gulf war, when the US used Saudi soil to overcome Saddam.

And this was thought to be worse than actual Saddam himself.

A majority of Saudi's dont like the United States because of that.

I'd like to see everyone know the true facts like most of us do.

Wrong dude. The US didn't ever support the Taliban, they supported the Afganis against the Soviets in the 80s. With the weapons left in Afganistan from that conflict, the Taliban regime took over the country some seven years ago.

By the way, there is NO oil in Afganistan. NONE, not a ****ing drop. There are rocks, and poppies in Afganistan, no oil. The only industies affected by the Taliban, or foreign involvement are the drug industry, and the gravel industry.

Nimreitz is right, there is no oil in Afghanistan. There is oil however in the mountainous countries to the North of Afghanistan like Uzbekistan, etc. stretching all the way to southern Russia. That's the oil America want and in order to do that they need a pipeline to the coast. They aren't going to put that pipeline through Iran, because Iran is opposed to the US and is a tad more powerful than Afghanistan. Therefore the pipeline needs to go through Afghanistan.

After the events of Sept 11th I think the US did what had to be done, they needed to 'have a go' at Al Qaeda and the Taleban regime that supported it, to try to prevent attrocities like that happening to their people again. Had those events not happened, I wonder if the 'operations' in Afghanistan would not have taken place?

Saudi's have oil. End of argument. Saudi's have oil. US needs oil. Hey, developed world needs oil.

theres a minute silence for the attack.....but why isnt there a minute silence for all the inocent afghans america murdered after:jambo:

Originally posted by AberdeenFC
theres a minute silence for the attack.....but why isnt there a minute silence for all the inocent afghans america murdered after

cause....that is justified.........of course.........by this...."War on Terror"... :jambo: :rolleyes: :kader: :-puke: :(

Originally posted by LaBrujita
911, A couple things.
In my english class today my prof brought in an article by the well known American author Gore Vidal. He has done a lot of research into the US's foreign activities and political actions. Besides talking about a lot of CIA action in Panama, Chile and other countries it also talked about the U.S.'s plans which eventually caused 911.


The US was planning on going into Afghanistan in OCOTOBER to take control of the oil in the middle east. The "terrorists" in the middle east figured this out and preemptively attacked the US. I use the term middle east NOT afghanistan because....
12 out of the 16 involved terrorists were SAUDIS not AFGHANS. :jambo:

The US just sprayed afghanistan all over the place because a) they wanted to use afghan for the above reason of the oil "wars", and b) they were apparantely allies witht he Saudis.

What you may or may not see from what i said (which was wrong) was calling the "terrorists" saudis or afghans, they were neither, they were simply tools... they don't represent afghan peopel or saudi people. But to the US this iwas a great chance to make themselves look good and powerful and be in control of yet another country.

The US had gone one step farther though. They set up the TALIBAN (years ago) in the first place to do the dirty work for them... but they didn't ... well turn out so well, so the US was ready to go in themselves (October).


This may or may not be new/believable info to you.. it's not presented to you on TV so it's a little less believable ... i found it an interesting possibility however. THought i'd share it.


ps. 3,000 people died in the 911 attacks... and it wasn't unprovoked at all. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Hiroshima, also not unprovoked. Just because the US seems to only do what's right and what's heroic, doesn't mean that's all that's going on. It's very easy to withhold things. I'm sure our non northamerican friends who follow the news know more about what happened than us NA's.

hey your the guy who attacked me about my spelling in the "Introduce yourself" thread, saying that my spelling blows and that it was done by a 12 year old, man there are alot of mistakes above....

With what you are saying you are correct, alot of people have said this in other threads, unfortunately the ignorant watch the news and dont believe it and most of them voted (i dont care what you say Nimritz even i still believe bush never won that election fairly) Bush in and they will do it again in a few years time.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-oil.html

http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/afghanistan-oil.htm

here are some interesting sites i have found both backing up the claims of no oil in Afghanistan

Originally posted by zul-aid
http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/afghanistan-oil.htm

here are some interesting sites i have found both backing up the claims of no oil in Afghanistan


This link is very good, because it also shows why there's still a war between Russian and Chechnya (check the existing Russian oil pipeline).
Great, I knew about this for a long tme but never sad anything because I didn't find evidence yet. Cool, thanks, man.

Yeah, fine. The former USSR has tons of oil, I suppose I can buy the pipeline arguement. But I don't think that anyone can argue that the main reason for going into Afganistan was to get a future pipeline. I think when we got there and realized that we couldn't get Bin Laden in a few days, we turned our attention to something that we could do, overthrow the Taliban. But I don't think anyone can truely believe that our primary goal in going to Afganistan was oil.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Yeah, fine. The former USSR has tons of oil, I suppose I can buy the pipeline arguement. But I don't think that anyone can argue that the main reason for going into Afganistan was to get a future pipeline. I think when we got there and realized that we couldn't get Bin Laden in a few days, we turned our attention to something that we could do, overthrow the Taliban. But I don't think anyone can truely believe that our primary goal in going to Afganistan was oil.
ANY american involvement in the middle east has to do with oil. of course it was called "an attack on terrorism" or some type of "super payback: WITH A VENGAENCE!" (i can see the movie poster now) but don't be fooled by that. the underlying motives are as clear as they were 10 years ago.

I never said there was oil in Afghanistan. I simply said it would be used to get oil.

Zul-aid you can fix my spelling if you'd like.

Originally posted by Juventus_theres_next_year
Saudi's have oil. End of argument. Saudi's have oil. US needs oil.

USA got enough oil of it's own.
but as the biggest capitalist nation in the world,
why waste resources when you can buy it with money...:D

overall, I personally think there's too much anti-american winds
blowing around those forums, and that's a shame...

Originally posted by The True
USA got enough oil of it's own.
but as the biggest capitalist nation in the world,
why waste resources when you can buy it with money...:D

overall, I personally think there's too much anti-american winds
blowing around those forums, and that's a shame...

Better still, why not appropriate the oil by force? Just make sure you have some plausible reasons to cover it up..:rolleyes:

Originally posted by The True
USA got enough oil of it's own.
but as the biggest capitalist nation in the world,
why waste resources when you can buy it with money...:D

overall, I personally think there's too much anti-american winds
blowing around those forums, and that's a shame...

America like the rest of the world does not have much oil
Prices have rise since the mid 90's only the start of this year the word recession was used. America's only use of oil is the Saudi's and they cannot keep relying on one market and they need their own (only russia as any form of Partner)

One clear fact of this is the northernist state of America - Alaska. The start of this year, Bushs government (and company) were going to drill their, unfortunately environmentals and locals got in the way... so that left Bush with plan C (since both Saudi and Alaska failed) "If ya cant deal with them, kill them" type attitude seen with both Bushes (Clinton didnt want anything to do with Saddam)

Also in 1991 there was no cease-fire in Iraq, they ran out of money even Dan 'the man' Quayle says so, three years after a massive recession they go to war and use all that they had and were getting there arses kicked (most of you guys seem to be too young to remember)

lots of you complain against US aggrassion,
and point that there are hidden motives in they're moves.

do you really think Saddam is a saint?
and Bush is the aggressor?:rolleyes:

Originally posted by The True
lots of you complain against US aggrassion,
and point that there are hidden motives in they're moves.

do you really think Saddam is a saint?
and Bush is the aggressor?:rolleyes:

Mo Mowlan minster of the Ireland during Blairs first term thinks this is about oil, so do many other Americans and Non Americans many many other countries including Isreal have weapsons of mass distruction, Iraq (rumoured) are only tring to build one, last time they went to Iraq they bombed medical centres - whats up with that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2254705.stm
this is for and agianst it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2246438.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2175084.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/869234.stm

Originally posted by The True
lots of you complain against US aggrassion,
and point that there are hidden motives in they're moves.

do you really think Saddam is a saint?
and Bush is the aggressor?:rolleyes:

No. But Bush is no saint either. Fact is the USA have done precisely the things they are so against in the past and present. How can anyone preach about freedom of opinion if they themselves do not practice it. (Notice the fact that a film made by respected people within Hollywood, which has been spoken about in previous threads, that shows the other side to the story has been banned in the USA. Just as a pro-American film would be banned in Iraq).

I'm gonna start another middle east thread in order to get all this debate in one thread and out of the threads paying respects to the dead.

See you all there hopefully. :)

Originally posted by zul-aid
many many other countries including Isreal have weapsons of mass distruction,

China, France, GB etc. are super-power nations, so they have nikes
Israel have nukes, cause if it doesn't, the 50 Arab countries
would have long ago destry it.
the common thing to those countries
(well, maybe except China, but nothing perfect)
is that they're all Democratic states...
and Iraq... you know the rest.

The True, what about North Korea and Pakistan? There goes that theory.

What gets me, as monkee said, it's the hypocrisy of America. They preach integration, yet practice isolation. They preach peace, but withdraw from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. They preach overthrowing Saddam, but all they want is his oil. As the self proclaimed 'leader of the free world', this fills me with anxiety - and its not as if its a new phenomenon, either.

hemolt, that's what I've said about China too.
the Theory still stands, cause Pakistan, China etc.
ALREADY have nukes, there's nothing we can do about it,
however, Iraq, Iran and such STILL DON'T
so it's the free world responsebility to prevent it.

Originally posted by The True
Iran

hey "true?" dont go bad mouthing your ally

Usa is using Iran as a port for the part two of "war on terror" : Revenge on Iraq (almost sounds like a movie)

Isreal have the bomb are they likely to use it?

Your map shows that Isreal is a small country and if they use it the radiation would obviously destroy any remaining Isrealy over 2 short years....

Also why do you preach that Isreal is this holy nation that has done nothing wrong?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/wales/1927779.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/scotland/1915071.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1915507.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1487045.stm

the rest of the (free and knowledgeable) world can see it why cant you?

My Theory on the Destruction of the World
Lets say Iraq detinates THE bomb tomorrow over New York, then retailiation Usa sends one over Baghdad (killing innocent civilians on both sides)

what remains - not much of anything really except this:
Cheney is now prez since he has been in an underground bunker since sept 11th annversary (FACT)....

Cuba would have finished USA off since any attack against any country would be seen as an attack against them, USA, IRAQ, IRAN, etc... gone

Leaving Cuba (radiation and all) France Britain Russia and Isreal (Wales is moving on up) as the remaining super powers.. France and England would squable over whos the new world leader...

Isreal crys foul as they no longer have big bro to help them, they ask for help (Russia ignores them now they have a chance to get Checneya since USA is now gone)

Palestine, and the Arab world invade Isreal (Isreal out)

This leaves England, France and the rest of Europe and Asia / Oceania and the Arab world (sounds weird when ya think about it)

England and France (squables over) and the rest of Europe declare war on all Arab states for the lost of the USA....

Asia, Central America and Australia heavily affected by the loss on the States stay neutral as so they dont head into a nuclear war they cannot survive

like all countries at war England, France are reduced in both size and population but the war ends in cease-fire (the Arab world under new leadership become allys with the new world leaders)

Peace for evermore.......................................
over 1 billion dead

Originally posted by zul-aid
Isreal have the bomb are they likely to use it?

Your map shows that Isreal is a small country and if they use it the radiation would obviously destroy any remaining Isrealy over 2 short years....

short note about Iran: yes, the US is using Iran now to get Iraq,
but Iran is one of the biggest world-terror supporter,
inc. Al-Qauida, Hamas and Hizb-Alla (lebanon)
as a wise man said: "the enemies of my enemies - are my friends"

fisrt of all, (hopefuly) Israel is not likely to use nukes.
however, since Israel is always under a real threat of war,
there's a top-plan called "the Samson plan" (of byblical Samson
who crashed the palace and died with all plastines)
the plan is about, if Israel is standing infront of total destruction,
she will make the move Samson did, and take all it's enemies with her to the grave.

I'm not saying this is realistic, tho' after 9/11 every script is possible,
but it's a true plan, and it made it psychological impact
over Arabic leadership.

now, to your nightmare script...;)
as I've said, after 9/11 any script is possible.
let's all pray together that those things will never happen.

(funny) note:
you've talked about US operations names...
yeh, they all sounds like movies names:D
"Anaconda : the revenge" / "Desert Storm : the seaqual"...:p

Originally posted by The True
short note about Iran: yes, the US is using Iran now to get Iraq,
but Iran is one of the biggest world-terror supporter,
inc. Al-Qauida, Hamas and Hizb-Alla (lebanon)
as a wise man said: "the enemies of my enemies - are my friends"

fisrt of all, (hopefuly) Israel is not likely to use nukes.
however, since Israel is always under a real threat of war,
there's a top-plan called "the Samson plan" (of byblical Samson
who crashed the palace and died with all plastines)
the plan is about, if Israel is standing infront of total destruction,
she will make the move Samson did, and take all it's enemies with her to the grave.

I'm not saying this is realistic, tho' after 9/11 every script is possible,
but it's a true plan, and it made it psychological impact
over Arabic leadership.

now, to your nightmare script...;)
as I've said, after 9/11 any script is possible.
let's all pray together that those things will never happen.

(funny) note:
you've talked about US operations names...
yeh, they all sounds like movies names:D
"Anaconda : the revenge" / "Desert Storm : the seaqual"...:p

Also you havent givern your opinion on what i said earlier
Rabbi in New York after Terriorists attack and during the flare up last year between Isreal and Palestine the news reporter asked his opinion on the subject (hoping to get a anti-palestine response) except he blamed the States because after WW2 USA (very racist at the time) didnt want any more 'Jews' in their country and sent them 'home', however as you have quoted Jews are not allowed 'Home' because in the religous book (Torah?) no Jew is to return to the holy land..... so no Jew is supposted to be in Isreal and they should be left to roam the world like Gypises as one person later put it (American said that last quote so dont have a go at me - but i didnt want to offend any Gypises or Jews, even the word Jew is a put down).

Originally posted by The True
however, since Israel is always under a real threat of war,
there's a top-plan called "the Samson plan" (of byblical Samson
who crashed the palace and died with all plastines)
the plan is about, if Israel is standing infront of total destruction,
she will make the move Samson did, and take all it's enemies with her to the grave.


Are you serious on that? I mean, do you have a notion of what you're saying!?
This is crazy.:kader:

I didn't quite understood you post.
are all the stuff are his words?
ot he just blamed the US, and the rest is your words?

anyway, what can I say? he's a stupid man.
funny you remember this, and not remembering the palestinians
celebretions parades...
I'm mentioned it, because you showed those BBC articles,
and sometimes I see BBC or SKY and wondering if they got any sense...
they focus on the Pala suffer, instead of focusing on what cause it,
and that's the pala leadership who chose the path of terror.
Israel didn't responed for long time, tho' it suffered daily pala terror attacks,
but when it responed, everybody shouted how poor pala are...

as for what the "Torah" (it called bible also:) ) says,
I don't know who said that the bible says the Jewish people should wonder...
the opposite is true, all over the bible, it says that Jerusalem is the holy city
and that God will gather all the people of Israel into the holy-land.

when hearing muslims say that house-mountain (in Jeruslaem)
is holly to Islam, it make sme laugh,
cause it's only mentioned in the Kura'an that Mohamad only
dreamt ONCE on it. he never even been there, and he only dreamt about it.
and overall, Jerusalem is only mentioned ONCE in the Kura'an.

Originally posted by The True
I didn't quite understood you post.
are all the stuff are his words?
ot he just blamed the US, and the rest is your words?

anyway, what can I say? he's a stupid man.
funny you remember this, and not remembering the palestinians
celebretions parades...
I'm mentioned it, because you showed those BBC articles,
and sometimes I see BBC or SKY and wondering if they got any sense...
.

Those Palestinian parades of joy was old footage, everyone knows that CNN was the one who was showing it on Sept 11 every other channel copied the footage on Sept 12th CNN retracted the footage and gave a statement - that was footage of when Yasser Arafat (and the Isrealy prez that got assassinated the only leader i think Isreal had of any credability) signed the peace agreement

"We have fought against you the palestianians, enough of the blood and tears, enough" i think that Isrealy prez said on the white house lawn all this stuff should have ended their..... But both sides have continued to fight

EDIT: Another question what happened on the 30th anniversary of the terrible incidents in Munchen 1972 (what did Isreal and you do on that day?)i watched a documentary on that and how the Mosard later killed all but one of the terriorists....................

The True
Sadam is no saint but Bush is not a healthy man either. Bush is a ****ing moron in my opinion, and you keep defending Israel over and ****ing over. The US sent billions of dollars to israel for weapons and they keep sending those sums of money but yet they try to negotiate peace. How is that possible when they provide the fire power. Palestinians throw rocks and Israeli throw ****ing grenades. As for the Iraq conflict...well it's a big shame that a lot of innocent people will die, just to make a mad man happy and protect the interests of other countries(eg. Israel) rather than the U.S.

No one should have nukes.

US wouldn't give two hoots about Middle-East if there was nothing black running underneath their soil.


There are treacherous dictators in Africa, Asia, and South America. Even a US neighbour - Cuba! But hey, ain't nuthin in it for 'em, so why should they car?

Originally posted by Juventus_theres_next_year
No one should have nukes.

US wouldn't give two hoots about Middle-East if there was nothing black running underneath their soil.


There are treacherous dictators in Africa, Asia, and South America. Even a US neighbour - Cuba! But hey, ain't nuthin in it for 'em, so why should they car?
That pretty much sums it up. Well said;)