Sign On
Create Account
Posts (89),   Pages:prevnext1   2   3   all  
AuthorMessage
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#1 posted May 1, 2011 at 11:09pm (EST)  
osama bin laden is dead! US has his body........ more to follow!
gambler Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
#2 posted May 1, 2011 at 11:18pm (EST)  
Yea I am waiting for the president to make his speech....will it make things better or worse? will someone want to avenge his death?
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#3 posted May 1, 2011 at 11:29pm (EST)  
that's what they are saying gambler!! everyone has been put on high alert....... sad right? it all goes round and round!
llamamama
#4 posted May 1, 2011 at 11:33pm (EST)  
I've been waiting for his bloody speech for almost an hour. Holy crap.
they
#5 posted May 2, 2011 at 1:12am (EST)  
Perfectly timed, wasn't it?

 * dead face *
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#6 posted May 2, 2011 at 7:33am (EST)  
Hhhhmmm, somehow i don't think that these kind of things work on a time table! i think there was a lot to do prior to making a speech.
they
#7 posted May 2, 2011 at 7:59am (EST)  
Okay. Now they threw him in the ocean.

Yeah.
they
#8 posted May 2, 2011 at 8:37am (EST)  
I just don't know how anyone feels comfortable believing anything anymore.
llamamama
#9 posted May 2, 2011 at 8:45am (EST)  
Yeah, that seems super fishy.

This man hadn't been seen in FOREVER
And he wears a beard
And..no one saw any evidence of him being dead..and now they've just tossed the body into the ocean.
Whaaaat?
Now, I'm not sure what what the protocol is when you kill a known terrorist..But are you really supposed to drop it in the ocean?
Hm.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#10 posted May 2, 2011 at 8:48am (EST)  
they buried him at sea because they don't want anyone making a shrine out of his grave. it is at times difficult to believe news that is released but i think that over the next few days more information will be released and DNA will be complete. they are deciding whether or not to release the photos. i really believe that there was an enormous amount of notifications to be done and work towards protection/defense around the world in case of retaliation prior to "the speech". i think president obama had to be sure it was the truth.
llamamama
#11 posted May 2, 2011 at 8:50am (EST)  
It seems he should have been sure before he let all of us know.....

because now, if it turns out it wasn't true, he's going to look like a super jerk.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#12 posted May 2, 2011 at 8:55am (EST)  
"and he wears a beard"??? really?
they have supposedly done a huge amount of analysis at the scene and have information that has not been released. if you are following the story at all, it is not true that he hasn't been seen in "forever". you just weren't informed that they had tracked him and had to follow intel to be positive or as close to positive as they could be before going in after him. this has been going on for many months. they received the tip in august...............
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#13 posted May 2, 2011 at 8:56am (EST)  
believe me........ he wouldn't have spoken if they weren't sure.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#14 posted May 2, 2011 at 9:00am (EST)  
as i said, the information about the entire mission will come out over time. the other thing to keep in mind, if he didn't speak all of the speculation by the media would have swirled into madness. they had to say something.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#15 posted May 2, 2011 at 9:03am (EST)  
my thoughts and prayers are with the families of those killed and injured on 9/11 and with our military who are still engaged.
no celebration.......just hopes for peace.
FordGuy Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#16 posted May 2, 2011 at 9:56am (EST)  
I'm not buying it. Water burial? My ass. This is just more political rhetoric. If the guy was dead they'd have his head on stick planted on the white house lawn.
llamamama
#17 posted May 2, 2011 at 10:24am (EST)  
I'm not trying to suggest they just grabbed any guy with a beard. But beards, like sunglasses can radically alter your appearance.

1) The media didn't really have any speculation. I don't know about you..but when it came over the air that Obama was going to say something, I had no idea what he was going to talk about. No one really knew anything.
2) The death of Osama bin Laden, does not mean the end of the war. Obama did say when he first came into office that the war would end that August. As you can tell, it still hasn't. Osama was not the only terrorist. He was not the only person we had to worry about. Yeah it's great if he's dead, but this war is far from over. It's not that easy. I'd like as much as the next person for the war to be over, but it just won't be soon.
Enheduanna Survey Central Subscriber
#18 posted May 2, 2011 at 11:28am (EST)  
Obama didn't say the war on terror would be over by that August. He said that troops would be out of Iraq, although I think he said by August of 2010. That hasn't quite happened either, although troops there are significantly reduced.
llamamama
#19 posted May 2, 2011 at 11:49am (EST)  
Sorry, mixed up my years.

Yeah, he hasn't done it yet.
Aaaand he just sent us to Libya..Soooo...
Lysannus Survey Qualifier
#20 posted May 2, 2011 at 12:45pm (EST)  
I'm with FordGuy, this is just political bullcrap to save face and increase popularity.
Enheduanna Survey Central Subscriber
#21 posted May 2, 2011 at 1:41pm (EST)
edited May 2, 2011 at 1:42pm (EST)  
I was pointing out that you mixed up your wars--the war in Iraq is not the war on terror (a fact Obama clearly recognizes, despite the reasons for the invasion of Iraq being framed as part of the war on terror). And he hasn't exactly "sent us to Libya." There are no troops on the ground there. But that's also not the same as the war on terror. Neither Iraq nor Libya really has much to do with Bin Laden.
llamamama
#22 posted May 2, 2011 at 1:59pm (EST)  
No, but we're still Iraq, are we not?
He's opposed the war on terror and all subsequent wars from the beginning. And yet, we're still in them. And that's because they aren't as easy to stop as he thought (promised?).
Enheduanna Survey Central Subscriber
#23 posted May 2, 2011 at 4:45pm (EST)  
No, the point is that he's not actually opposed to the war on terror or in favor of ending it. He never has been.

Iraq, yes; Afghanistan, not entirely; terror, no. These are three different wars and he has never opposed all three of them unilaterally. He said from the beginning that he would make finding Bin Laden (i.e., the war on terror) a priority. We're still in Iraq, which is disappointing, although he has drawn down most of our troops--and sent many of them to Afghanistan, where he said he wanted to send them.

I'm sure things weren't as easy as he thought they'd be--I imagine that's also why he hasn't fulfilled his promise to close Guantanamo, which is also very disappointing. But he's actually been fairly consistent in moving toward ending Iraq, restoring stability in Afghanistan, and fighting terrorism by, among other things, pursuing Bin Laden.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#24 posted May 2, 2011 at 5:17pm (EST)  

> Aaaand he just sent us to Libya..Soooo...

no he didn't actually.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#25 posted May 2, 2011 at 5:19pm (EST)  

> He's opposed the war on terror and all subsequent wars from the beginning.
> And yet, we're still in them. And that's because they aren't as
> easy to stop as he thought (promised?).

he has not opposed the war on terror, he opposed our invasion of iraq, which had nothing to do with the war on terror as was pointed out above.
he never said it would be easy and we continue to reduce troops in iraq.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#26 posted May 2, 2011 at 5:21pm (EST)
edited May 2, 2011 at 5:22pm (EST)  
FordGuy wrote:
> I'm not buying it. Water burial? My ass. This is just more political
> rhetoric. If the guy was dead they'd have his head on stick planted
> on the white house lawn.

reports are that the initial DNA was a match and that it was him! i think if bush was in office, you might have gotten the "head on a stick" but not with obama!
llamamama
#27 posted May 2, 2011 at 6:21pm (EST)  
Jettles, Obama is not a saint. Let's throw that out there. Bush probably would not have put his head on a stick either.

Second, they say they threw his body into the ocean for three reasons: 1) To keep with the tradition of burying withing 24 hours. Which is nice of them, I guess. 2) Because no countries were willing to take his body. 3) They didn't want a burial site.

If they had had a burial site, either a shrine would have been erected or his body would have been dug up and destroyed. He was a person whom pretty much everyone in the world had strong opinions about.

I want to see the DNA results and his pictures (I don't want to see his pictures because I find joy in looking at dead people). There's some discussion about whether or not the pictures will be released.

Blargh.
southernyankee
#28 posted May 2, 2011 at 7:17pm (EST)  
I wonder how would they know that thats his real DNA if they hadn't had his DNA samples to begin with. I am assuming they're getting matches from willing family (who disowned Osama from what I've heard).

I wonder why no one in Pakistan got suspicious that a giant bunker was being built in a relatively nice part of town not too far from heavily populated urban areas. I am not familiar with their legal system, but do they not have zoning laws in Pakistan? I am not talking about retarded "you can't paint your house red" regulations, I talking about "no building large bunkers in my gentrified ghetto" type of rules. Hym? Whats up with that Pakistan?

I wonder if Islamic Law allows for shaving of your beard in order to avoid capture, if your capture hurts your cause. It would be almost hilarious to find out the dude was walking around without a beard the whole time. Hopefully, that would have exposed him as a phony the whole time.
southernyankee
#29 posted May 2, 2011 at 7:22pm (EST)  
FordGuy wrote:
> I'm not buying it. Water burial? My ass. This is just more political
> rhetoric. If the guy was dead they'd have his head on stick planted
> on the white house lawn.

As tempting as that would be, that would probably galvanize a whole bunch of new terrorists.

Not to mention, that would stink up the White House, and attract a whole bunch of rodents and maggots. And probably a violation of DC's zoning laws.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#30 posted May 2, 2011 at 7:27pm (EST)  
llamamama wrote:
> Jettles, Obama is not a saint. Let's throw that out there. Bush
> probably would not have put his head on a stick either.

i never said he was a saint and i find your tone quite condescending!! lets throw that out there!


> I want to see the DNA results and his pictures (I don't want to see
> his pictures because I find joy in looking at dead people). There's
> some discussion about whether or not the pictures will be released.

i find it quite interesting that you have the great need to see the DNA results.... would an expert opinion be enough? or would that depend on who it was or what camp they are in? and if you saw the photos would you be able to tell if it was him? any of that could be falsified as well. there were photos on the internet already that are not real.................... i don't see how any of it is going to satisfy you! and i'm not saying that as a slam against you, but because you seem not to believe what's been reported by the news media or stated by our government and other's around the world. it could all be a conspiracy but how will we ever know?

i believe he is dead. i really don't need to see the photos. it would be interesting to see the DNA results against his family's results just because i find genetics and such interesting.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#31 posted May 2, 2011 at 7:29pm (EST)  
southernyankee wrote:
> I wonder how would they know that thats his real DNA if they hadn't
> had his DNA samples to begin with. I am assuming they're getting
> matches from willing family (who disowned Osama from what I've heard).

they said the initial dna was an almost 100% match against family........ in news articles today.

southernyankee
#32 posted May 2, 2011 at 7:39pm (EST)  
Maybe llamma wants to see the actually DNA sequence, all 40 million (or however many genes a human has) letters. ATGCGCGGAT.....

 * wink *
southernyankee
#33 posted May 2, 2011 at 7:41pm (EST)  
"I want to see the DNA results and his pictures..."

You want the telomeres too, or JUST the active DNA letters.
llamamama
#34 posted May 2, 2011 at 7:46pm (EST)  
I'm getting serious deja vu
I want to see his DNA sequence of course.

And Jettles, sorry for the sassy tone, but you were implying that "Oh Obama would never stick Bin Laden's head on a stick. But Bush probably would have" <--note, I know you didn't say that.
That implies that Obama is a much better person. Because sticking someones head on a stick is slightly wrong.

My apologies.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#35 posted May 2, 2011 at 7:47pm (EST)
edited May 2, 2011 at 7:48pm (EST)  
southernyankee wrote:
> Maybe llamma wants to see the actually DNA sequence, all 40 million
> (or however many genes a human has) letters. ATGCGCGGAT.....
>
>  * wink *

 * shock *  * laughing out loud *
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#36 posted May 2, 2011 at 7:56pm (EST)  
llamamama wrote:
> I'm getting serious deja vu
> I want to see his DNA sequence of course.
>
> And Jettles, sorry for the sassy tone

my retort was to fordguy's(i think it was him) semi wise ass comment about the head on a stick. and it was more aimed to personality of bush vs obama. bush being fairly cocky, showy, crass and speaking with more violence as opposed to obama's "can't we get along", quieter assurance, etc. it wasn't meant as one is better as a person than the other.
of course i think one is a better president than the other, as i am sure you do too, but it was not meant that way!
llamamama
#37 posted May 2, 2011 at 9:43pm (EST)  
I didn't get the "cocky, showy, crass and speaking with more violence as opposed to obama's....." tone in Bush's voice.

It was a completely different time 2001-2008 than it is now.
He had to do something.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#38 posted May 2, 2011 at 11:19pm (EST)  
llamamama wrote:
> I didn't get the "cocky, showy, crass and speaking with more violence
> as opposed to obama's....." tone in Bush's voice.
>
> It was a completely different time 2001-2008 than it is now.
> He had to do something.

i am not arguing with you. i was just explaining my thought process and how i see it. we see things differently and we do most of the time as far as politics or world events are concerned. no judgement one way or the other about it, it just is.
i don't think it is such a different time from then until now but that is me looking over a longer time..... they are two different people and they handle and react to things differently, as expected. it is what it is.
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#39 posted May 2, 2011 at 11:27pm (EST)  
jettles wrote:
> southernyankee wrote:
>> I wonder how would they know that thats his real DNA if they hadn't
>> had his DNA samples to begin with. I am assuming they're getting
>> matches from willing family (who disowned Osama from what I've
> heard).
>
> they said the initial dna was an almost 100% match against family........
> in news articles today.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/science/03dna.ht...
llamamama
#40 posted May 2, 2011 at 11:33pm (EST)  
jettles wrote:
> llamamama wrote:
>> I didn't get the "cocky, showy, crass and speaking with more violence
>> as opposed to obama's....." tone in Bush's voice.
>>
>> It was a completely different time 2001-2008 than it is now.
>> He had to do something.
>
> i am not arguing with you. i was just explaining my thought process
> and how i see it. we see things differently and we do most of the
> time as far as politics or world events are concerned. no judgement
> one way or the other about it, it just is.
> i don't think it is such a different time from then until now but
> that is me looking over a longer time..... they are two different
> people and they handle and react to things differently, as expected.
> it is what it is.


I think how they had to go about it was different back then. It wasn't so long ago..but yeah.
We'll just need to agree to disagree about this.  * smile *
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#41 posted May 3, 2011 at 12:22pm (EST)  
With stories like these that have been reported - it's hard to believe anything now. I need to see the graphic pictures of his dead body to believe...



Maybe he's been dead a long time and the US was just waiting for an opportune moment to announce his death...

FordGuy Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#42 posted May 4, 2011 at 9:01am (EST)
edited May 4, 2011 at 9:02am (EST)  
He's not dead. Just sayin'
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#43 posted May 4, 2011 at 9:48am (EST)  
DNA samples don't prove a thing. The Bush family were once friends of his family; (and still are) and they could have just as easily asked him for a cheek swab... It proves nothing, nothing at all. Considering all the accusations of 911 being an inside job; what with the elimination of forensic evidence that could have allowed for a real inquiry into the reason the towers failed structurally and now the elimination of the most wanted person's body thrown at sea to respect the Muslim tradition of a prompt burial? A mass murderer? A serious criminal to the people of the US? They want to respect his fudging religion for fear of more attacks? Gimme a break! I'm not even remotely worried about Al Qaeda repercussions - I'm more worried about "Homeland Security" freaking everyone out with their scare tactics. It's going to wreak havoc on travelers again. *sigh*
llamamama
#44 posted May 4, 2011 at 3:32pm (EST)  
I don't find it hard to believe that they wanted to honor the religion. Just because he's a bloody psychopath doesn't mean all Islamics are.
No other country would take his body. I wonder why.

I'm slightly worried about repercussions. The mayor of New York was talking about it today. I'm not concerned about them attacking New York. I'm more concerned about them coming here. Not only do we have the largest Naval base, but the SEALs who took bin Laden down were from Virginia Beach. Holy crap.
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#45 posted May 4, 2011 at 3:42pm (EST)  
Stop listening to politicians, they're all liars. Don't worry about repercussions. Here, watch this - it might help allay your fears;
cerealkiller Survey Qualifier
#46 posted May 4, 2011 at 4:17pm (EST)  
llamamama wrote:
> I'm slightly worried about repercussions. The
> mayor of New York was talking about it today.
> I'm not concerned about them attacking New York.
> I'm more concerned about them coming here. Not
> only do we have the largest Naval base, but the
> SEALs who took bin Laden down were from Virginia
> Beach. Holy crap.

Since you mentioned it, they're probably tracking you down and targeting your house right now. My wife worries all the time about the Mexicans revolting and killing white people. We live in Mexican illegal and gang land central.
llamamama
#47 posted May 4, 2011 at 4:49pm (EST)  
Holy crap. It's not like I think they're going to come and get me. But if there going to be pissed off at on area, it's going to be right here.
cerealkiller Survey Qualifier
#48 posted May 4, 2011 at 5:20pm (EST)  
Probably won't be a mass strike. They'll probably just start taking down people randomly, like when you go to the shopping mall. Don't leave your house unless you have to. Seriously. That is the feeling around here with the Mexicans. They've begun shooting at cars at night on the other side of town from me. It's getting crazy.
llamamama
#49 posted May 4, 2011 at 5:26pm (EST)  
I'm a lot less concerned about Mexicans.
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#50 posted May 4, 2011 at 5:38pm (EST)  
Did you watch the vid?
llamamama
#51 posted May 4, 2011 at 5:40pm (EST)  
No, not yet.

I'm fairly certain there was/is an Al-Qaeda.
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#52 posted May 4, 2011 at 10:58pm (EST)  
Oh there is but not as organised as implied...
llamamama
#53 posted May 4, 2011 at 11:26pm (EST)  
Does it really need to be extremely organized?
It's already proven what it can do. Whether it's got every mode of organization possible or it's just a guy sitting behind a desk, seems irrelevant.
FordGuy Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#54 posted May 5, 2011 at 8:47am (EST)  
I have a theory.
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#55 posted May 5, 2011 at 9:34am (EST)
edited May 5, 2011 at 9:36am (EST)  
Organization means everything - ask the IRA. Besides their occasional bombs, I doubt that they would have tried to fight by attacking London if it was on the other side of the world from them. I just doubt anything printed by the press lately. From where I stand, it all looks like scare tactics from the government, keeping the mass in fear so that they look to them for protection and letting them pass laws like the Patriot Act. Just look at what they called it! Patriot Act - is that brainwashing or what? Bernays wrote in 1928; "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." He pioneered modern public relations (a nicer way of saying propaganda) and his tactics are still being used today.
All my life, I've been one to 'think outside of the box', to question facts like why everyone is wearing white jeans this season, regardless of the fact that many look like hell wearing them, to take a step back and look at the big picture to understand why things are the way they are. When you question things rather than accept them as presented; you find interesting facts, facts that often contradict the presented reality.
Shaping people's conscious is simple, all it takes is media; fund a laboratory to 'find' the benefits of any product, take vitamin B12 for example and publish results that show some minor health benefit and voilą! Vitamin B12 sales increase. The pharmaceutical company that produces this product gains from this little study. People, in general, are gullible and often misinformed. It's always been like that and people like Bernays recognized this and used it to get the half of the population (women) to smoke freely. It was unacceptable for women to smoke in public then; he made it acceptable by getting some young women to pose as suffragettes and smoke in a parade, flaunting their independence and their need to be heard by voting.
I question the veracity of recent events, too many things surrounding 9/11, Bin Laden, Iraq, Bush and co. are questionable, so...
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#56 posted May 5, 2011 at 9:34am (EST)  
FordGuy wrote:
> I have a theory.

What's yours?
llamamama
#57 posted May 5, 2011 at 9:42am (EST)  
I don't think the whole point of terrorism is so fight. It's just to scare the living crap out of people. Attacking London, attacking New York, etc, all scared the crap out of people. People aren't so scared when it targets a specific group of people (not that they like it, but it's that whole "it isn't me" thing). But, when something happens at a seemingly normal place, that's when people are worried...because then it could be anyone. That's what terrorism is. They don't ever need to fight. They don't need to have the man power to fight. If they've scared us enough, we won't bother to try to figure that out.
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#58 posted May 5, 2011 at 10:29am (EST)  
A couple of well placed bombs, positioned by anyone and blaming someone else is a very effective scare tactic. Did you watch the video yet?
llamamama
#59 posted May 5, 2011 at 11:27am (EST)  
I watched part of it.

I'm inclined to think it's bull.
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#60 posted May 5, 2011 at 12:45pm (EST)  
Why?
llamamama
#61 posted May 5, 2011 at 12:54pm (EST)  
Because I don't think the whole thing is a cover up. What kind of gain could someone have by scaring not just a nation, but the whole world? They've been a problem long before 9/11.
It just makes absolutely no sense.
they
#62 posted May 5, 2011 at 5:29pm (EST)  
Like Irene said, fear is what led to the Patriot act.

More fear = more laws = more arrests and imprisonment. Prisons are largely privatized = Somebody is getting rich.
More fear = more wars = more usage of private corporations (like Halliburton) = Somebody is getting rich.
southernyankee
#63 posted May 5, 2011 at 6:11pm (EST)  
I am not disagreeing with Irene that the government has a vested interest in keeping us scared. I am disputing that being behind 9/11 (instead of Al Quida) is the best route to go about it, when there are much less murderous ways of going about it.
llamamama
#64 posted May 5, 2011 at 7:58pm (EST)  
Obviously if there are more arrests, the fear wasn't really there for those people, was it?

Sure, fear might have led to the Patriot Act, but I don't think the fear was contrived.
LindaH Silver Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
#65 posted May 5, 2011 at 8:35pm (EST)  
I still think more people are afraid of their neighbors than they are of terrorists.
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#66 posted May 5, 2011 at 9:41pm (EST)  
llamamama wrote:
>They've been a problem long before 9/11.
> It just makes absolutely no sense.

They were a problem long before? Funny, I had never even heard of El Qaeda before 9/11...
Keeping people in fear, looking to their government for their security helps bend the people's minds into accepting the idea of getting involved in wars that are most certainly profitable to a few. It makes sense to me.
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#67 posted May 5, 2011 at 9:47pm (EST)
edited May 5, 2011 at 9:47pm (EST)  
LindaH wrote:
> I still think more people are afraid of their neighbors than they
> are of terrorists.

That's what kept communism alive, that's what kept Hitler in power. It sickens me to see the youth camps at the time, getting the very young involved by brainwashing them into thinking that they were doing it for their country. Even the US resorted to accusations of communism towards people who questioned authority or just got in the way. There was no better way, in the 50s, to destroy someone's reputation and career than by calling them communists. Where are all those US communists now? Such a threat, weren't they...
llamamama
#68 posted May 5, 2011 at 10:03pm (EST)  
Irene007 wrote:
> llamamama wrote:
> |>They've been a problem long before 9/11.
>> It just makes absolutely no sense.
>
> They were a problem long before? Funny, I had never even heard of
> El Qaeda before 9/11...
> Keeping people in fear, looking to their government for their security
> helps bend the people's minds into accepting the idea of getting involved
> in wars that are most certainly profitable to a few. It makes sense
> to me.


Now, I may have been a baby, but I'm pretty sure Al-Qaeda was kind of a big deal during the Gulf War. Ya know, in 1991. Which, sounds like it's before 2001.

Also, that whole thing.."where are the communists now?" blah blah blah. That's got to be a number one pet peeve of mine. You CAN'T look at how people acted back then and judge them by today's standards. "Oh no, the people in the 50s were brainwashed." Never mind the fact that it was the COLD WAR and NUCLEAR WAR was very possible. And don't tell me they just wanted to do it to keep everyone in check. That's absolutely insane and you know it.

The government doesn't need to rule us by fear. If all this 9/11 stuff is totally bogus, then why did it not happen until then? That seems like a pretty crappy thing to do to EVERYONE just to keep us in check.

Yay for you for thinking outside the box. But boo for you for finding things that aren't there. 9/11 was real. The government didn't do it to scare us. It was real. And frankly, I think suggesting that it wasn't real, is sort of insulting to anyone who died/knew someone who died.
they
#69 posted May 5, 2011 at 10:53pm (EST)  

>> llamamama wrote:
|
> It was real. And
> frankly, I think suggesting
> that it wasn't real, is sort
> of insulting to anyone who
> died/knew someone who died.
>

Suggesting to me that I should take everything at face value and question nothing, just because people died.... is also insulting. You tried to use guilt there. Good move. I do it myself. Part of my job is controlling conversations, and gently applying guilt is one of my favorite conversational tricks.

There are some very valid reasons for questioning how things went down on 9/11. I don't understand how your standpoint of denying all of that evidence without really studying it is any better than us questioning it. I was hoping we could all agree to disagree, but now I feel like I've been accused of insulting the honor of 3000 dead people.
they
#70 posted May 5, 2011 at 10:57pm (EST)  
Irene007 wrote:

> Even the US resorted to accusations
> of communism towards people
> who questioned authority or
> just got in the way. There
> was no better way, in the
> 50s, to destroy someone's
> reputation and career than
> by calling them communists.
> Where are all those US communists
> now? Such a threat, weren't
> they...

It's why it was so easy to blame Kennedy's assassination on Oswald. He had lived in Russia and dabbled in communism: a perfect scapegoat for the times.
llamamama
#71 posted May 6, 2011 at 7:44am (EST)  
they wrote:
>
> |>> llamamama wrote:
> |
>> It was real. And
>> frankly, I think suggesting
>> that it wasn't real, is sort
>> of insulting to anyone who
>> died/knew someone who died.
>>
>
> Suggesting to me that I should take everything at face value and question
> nothing, just because people died.... is also insulting. You tried
> to use guilt there. Good move. I do it myself. Part of my job is controlling
> conversations, and gently applying guilt is one of my favorite conversational
> tricks.
>
> There are some very valid reasons for questioning how things went
> down on 9/11. I don't understand how your standpoint of denying all
> of that evidence without really studying it is any better than us
> questioning it. I was hoping we could all agree to disagree, but now
> I feel like I've been accused of insulting the honor of 3000 dead
> people.
>



I'm not saying that you shouldn't question things. I'm just saying that sometimes people try to find things where there isn't anything.
I don't think things changed drastically after the fact because they were trying to scare us. They changed because it was too little too late. Anytime something bad happens something is always enacted to prevent it from happening again. Even if what happened was just a 1 in a million chance (although with people is anything ever really a one in a million chance?).
I just cannot wrap my head around why the government would just essentially sacrifice 3,000 people..for essentially funsies to prove a point. What the heck?!
It makes much more sense to me that the government created all these airport things and all that after the fact to PROTECT us. Sure, we may find it tedious (and I haven't flown since they've enacted a free pat down), and we may think it doesn't really work ( putting all these names on a no fly list). But, I guarantee you that if it was like this before 9/11 we would have been bothered if nothing changed. OR if nothing changed after 9/11 we would have been mad/scared/some other emotion more than likely.
FordGuy Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
#72 posted May 6, 2011 at 8:21am (EST)
edited May 6, 2011 at 8:38am (EST)  
Irene007 wrote:
> FordGuy wrote:
>> I have a theory.
>
> What's yours?

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Reagan
LindaH Silver Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
#73 posted May 6, 2011 at 10:03am (EST)  
llamamama wrote:
>
> I'm not saying that you shouldn't question things.
> I'm just saying that sometimes people try to
> find things where there isn't anything.

 * yes *
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#74 posted May 6, 2011 at 4:06pm (EST)  
llamamama wrote:

> Now, I may have been a baby, but I'm pretty sure Al-Qaeda was kind
> of a big deal during the Gulf War. Ya know, in 1991. Which, sounds
> like it's before 2001.

Actually, it wasn't. I don't even remember one single mention of them at the time. However, Saddam was constantly mentioned - he had invaded friendly, rich in oil Kuwait. Al Qaeda was not a real issue at the time since it had only been organized in 1988 but the Gulf War inflamed this newly formed organization into wanting harm to the West. They did not, as well as many other peoples, like the US's policies in the Arab states. The joke at the time up here was; "If Kuwait's only export was broccoli, this war wouldn't be happening." It was common knowledge that Bush Sr. didn't like that particular vegetable so what was he really there for? The same reason his son invaded Iraq; oil. What disturbs me is how they spin people into believing that it's their patriotic duty to spread democracy and yada, yada. When all they wanted was to get another foothold in that part of the world. Saddam was once a friend to America, albeit one considered as somewhat nuts but it didn't stop the US from dealing with him in the past; as long as he went along with their policies - he was OK... only he didn't... I cannot condone a government that leads its people into war on false pretenses. If it was about spreading Democracy and liberating oppressed people; where the hell was the US when the Rwandan genocide was happening? If ever a people needed help since the Holocaust; they certainly did but alas, they weren't important enough. Just a poor country run by tyrants. A war in such a poor country would have been utterly crushed by a single invasion; so many lives would have been saved but they were just more Africans in a poor country. No reason to save their souls... There was nothing to gain.

> You CAN'T look at how people acted back then and judge them by today's standards.
> "Oh no, the people in the 50s were brainwashed." Never mind the
> fact that it was the COLD WAR and NUCLEAR WAR was very possible.
> And don't tell me they just wanted to do it to keep everyone in check.

When you will have lived a half a century and you can look back at your experiences; you may have a different opinion. You'll find that things which are the norm and totally acceptable now, will be seen as scandalous practices in the future. It happens all the time, what makes these times any different? The Cold War was real in that they amplified it to the point of near annihilation of this planet as we know it; creating an atmosphere of distrust among nations and especially its peoples. That's what governments do. The Military Complex has always been a fantastic means to suck the people out of its money; Kings did it in Feudal times only now we call our Kings Presidents and Prime Ministers... The cycle continues.

> The government doesn't need to rule us by fear. If all this 9/11
> stuff is totally bogus, then why did it not happen until then? That
> seems like a pretty crappy thing to do to EVERYONE just to keep us
> in check.

You're not getting the point. None of this happened to rule us with fear; it happened to keep us in fear so that we look to our rulers for protection, then they can justify the incredible expenses to wage war which in the end enriches those who get the contracts to 'rebuild' the war torn country that was invaded and whatever fallout a war creates. Talk to some soldiers, listen to their stories and they will tell you how perfectly fine, expensive, armoured vehicles, equipment and such were destroyed purposely just so they can order more and the someone who produces this stuff at the other end just gets richer with your tax dollars. (I'm simplifying things somewhat to make my point; it's much more complex than that. It's not like someone sat down somewhere and decided that we needed a war to fill the coffers of some rich buddies but it is a fact that these attacks are often already known by the government and they don't really look to prevent it so much as look at how they can take advantage of them.)

I'm not looking at things that aren't there, I'm looking at facts. You know? The buried ones, the ones they don't want you to see, the ones they keep from your attention with what bullcrap Britney is up to or who's screwing who in Hollywood or the new Xbox game and all the other mundane things that make the front line of the news...

There is real power to be had if you control media, I know for a fact. I use it in some respects...
llamamama
#75 posted May 6, 2011 at 4:57pm (EST)  
Irene007 wrote:
> llamamama wrote:
>

>
>> You CAN'T look at how people acted back then and judge them by
> today's standards.
>> "Oh no, the people in the 50s were brainwashed." Never mind the
>> fact that it was the COLD WAR and NUCLEAR WAR was very possible.
>> And don't tell me they just wanted to do it to keep everyone in
> check.
>
> When you will have lived a half a century and you can look back at
> your experiences; you may have a different opinion. You'll find that
> things which are the norm and totally acceptable now, will be seen
> as scandalous practices in the future. It happens all the time, what
> makes these times any different? The Cold War was real in that they
> amplified it to the point of near annihilation of this planet as we
> know it; creating an atmosphere of distrust among nations and especially
> its peoples. That's what governments do. The Military Complex has
> always been a fantastic means to suck the people out of its money;
> Kings did it in Feudal times only now we call our Kings Presidents
> and Prime Ministers... The cycle continues.
>
>> The government doesn't need to rule us by fear. If all this 9/11
>> stuff is totally bogus, then why did it not happen until then?
> That
>> seems like a pretty crappy thing to do to EVERYONE just to keep
> us
>> in check.
>
> You're not getting the point. None of this happened to rule us with
> fear; it happened to keep us in fear so that we look to our rulers
> for protection, then they can justify the incredible expenses to wage
> war which in the end enriches those who get the contracts to 'rebuild'
> the war torn country that was invaded and whatever fallout a war creates.
> Talk to some soldiers, listen to their stories and they will tell
> you how perfectly fine, expensive, armoured vehicles, equipment and
> such were destroyed purposely just so they can order more and the
> someone who produces this stuff at the other end just gets richer
> with your tax dollars. (I'm simplifying things somewhat to make my
> point; it's much more complex than that. It's not like someone sat
> down somewhere and decided that we needed a war to fill the coffers
> of some rich buddies but it is a fact that these attacks are often
> already known by the government and they don't really look to prevent
> it so much as look at how they can take advantage of them.)
>
> I'm not looking at things that aren't there, I'm looking at facts.
> You know? The buried ones, the ones they don't want you to see,
> the ones they keep from your attention with what bullcrap Britney
> is up to or who's screwing who in Hollywood or the new Xbox game and
> all the other mundane things that make the front line of the news...
>
> There is real power to be had if you control media, I know for a fact.
> I use it in some respects...


Okay, I deleted the first part. Not because I didn't think it was good, but I just thought they were part of the Gulf War.

Second part: It's not that you can't look at how people were in the past. I don't need to be 50 to know that. But you can't compare back then to now. So, while now we can look at the Cold War (with 20/20 hindsight) and see that it was weird, silly, whatever...You can't compare the two. You can't look at it with the hindsight.



I don't think war is there for people to make money. I think more people are harmed by war than helped by it.
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#76 posted May 6, 2011 at 5:22pm (EST)  
That's the point; war is not there to help anyone but a very few... And we're never part of that group; we just pay.
llamamama
#77 posted May 6, 2011 at 5:25pm (EST)  
I still don't buy that.
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#78 posted May 6, 2011 at 5:43pm (EST)  
Here's a perfect example of how people can be manipulated. Of course, I resort to 50 yr old advertising to illustrate my point but I would not be in the least surprised that we'll be just as shocked in the future by the addition of Aspartame to foods, lead amalgam fillings for teeth, OGM vegetables, fluoridation of our drinking water or whatever else that is the norm now. We like to think that we know everything, we don't...


This is what I mean by manipulation of the mass - the fact that they used doctors in the ad shows that they were subtlety manipulating to populace into believing that smoking is safe. People in the industry knew full well that it wasn't back then and they know it now yet; they have the government's support and are still allowed to sell that crap. Why? Lobbyists... Money... And stupid me, I thought our government agencies, like your FDA, were there to protect us and keep us safe. The only reason new laws forbidding smoking in public areas comes from pressure of the people who gathered up and protested. Some laws were enacted but yet the sale of this insidious product still goes on. Who really has the power? The people with the wealth; it's always been a fact of life, no matter the times, countries or cultures. It's one of the reason I'm so anti big corporations; they end up having too much power and wield it over our governments who are supposed to be our representatives but since they're only human after all; they often get 'bought'. It's a fact of life, it's not something I'm imagining, I have seen it.
llamamama
#79 posted May 7, 2011 at 11:49am (EST)  
Did they really know that smoking was bad back then? Or are you just juxtaposing what we know today. Over half of people smoked in the 50s. And I'm willing to bet you it wasn't just because of the advertisements.
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
#80 posted May 7, 2011 at 1:05pm (EST)  
Yes, they most definitely did know it at the time this advertisement was produced; that's why they used doctors to make it. Most people did smoke because it was socially acceptable and was perceived that way because of the tobacco industry's incessant promotion of their products through television commercials, billboards and magazine advertising; by sponsoring television shows, films and sporting events; through the use of sexy 'Cigar and Cigarette' girls in bars and restaurants (the trays they used were fabricated by tobacco companies and given as promotion to encourage sales), cigarette dispensers everywhere. They were real busy back then and they're still at it today but it was easier before the recent laws, now they have to find new angles; one of them is featuring brands with packaging, and advertising that were developed and manipulated specifically with the intent of appealing to beginning smokers. They can't advertise anymore so they make the packaging cool looking and trendy. That ploy is wasted here, no tobacco products are even allowed to be displayed in stores now for the last few years. With their faltering sales in the West; they've resorted to placing sexy girls in Jeeps who give free packages to kids coming out of school in countries were there are no tobacco laws!! They need to get them hooked young then they claim that their product is not addictive...
There are so many ways to 'advertise'; it can be in your face and it can be subtle. It most definitely works and shapes our society's ways of dressing, eating, playing and even, thinking. We are so inundated by it that we fail to see the forest for the trees.
Posts (89),   Pages:prevnext1   2   3   all