[The_Last_Melon]

It is quite rare for the US to be forced to do anything nowadays. They are the only remaining superpower.

[Pads]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Someone needs to revise the English language. If you are a foreigner and English is your 2nd or 3rd language, I'm sorry.

quote-
fam·i·ly
noun /ˈfam(ə)lē/ 
families, plural

The children of a person or couple
- "she has the sole responsibility for a large family"

A person or people related to one and so to be treated with a special loyalty or intimacy
- "I could not turn him away, for he was family"

kin: a person having kinship with another or others; "he's kin"; "he's family"
end quote-


Osama's son was murdered (as well as many others) therefore, his family was murdered. Just because some of his family still survive does not detract from the fact that his family was murdered.

And what you need to learn is that the context of the sentence changes a words meaning.

"His family was murdered" suggests all his family were murdered(also you should of used were instead of was.

"Part of his family were murdered" would of been better English and what you should of said.


Also about conspiracies, one reason I don't believe most of them is it would be so hard to hide all the tracks. Explained in this bbc article today about lone gunmen - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17996498 . When there are a lot of people working on something there is intelligence to see but for one person it can be easy to hide your intentions.

[VeniViciVidi]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Are you saying that if an organisation carries out terrorism across the world, they can't be accused of terrorism because they are allied to a government?

So I guess Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist organisations?

Or are you saying that if a government agency carries out terrorism against innocent civilians, it's magically not terrorism any more?

The CIA has a legitimate use of force as long as it doesn't break the Constitution and it's charter, two things it's arguably done already and long ago.

No, the CIA forms part of the government apparatus to exercise state-sanctioned use of force. Being allied to a government doesn't preclude you from being a terrorist neither, we'll be going into state-sponsored terrorism which is a different kettle of fish. Palestine is not recognized as a state but as a territory. Hence, they are labelled a terrorist organization as they do not have a mandate for the use of force. Hezbollah also does not form part of the security apparatus of Lebanon and is therefore classed as a terrorist organization.

Bruce Hoffman's internationally recognized definition terrorism is as follows:

> Ineluctably political in aims and motives
> Violent-or, equally important, threatens violence
> Designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target;
> Conducted by an organization... or by individuals directly influenced, motivated or inspired by ideological aims or example of some extent terrorist movement leaders;
> Perpetrated by a sub-national group or non-state entity.

If a security organization which is mandated first and foremost, to provide human security and national security (there is a difference), it loses it's legitimacy as a security organization. There has been no evidence relating to false-flag operations in the United States security framework.

[thisisnew]

(Original post by Algorithm69)
I really have no interest in debating a conspiracy theorist, which you are turning out to be. If you don't trust the official sources, fine, but provide your own evidence. This does not include inferences or speculation.

If you seriously cannot comprehend how infiltrating a terrorist organisation, gaining a key position in the execution of a terrorist plot, and then stealing key materials and delivering them to the other side, along with substantial evidence on the terrorist organisation, is not foiling a plot then there's little else I can say to you. The agent was not in charge, the agent did not create the terrorist organisation, the agent did not come up with the plan, the agent did not build the bomb. These things would have happened without him being there. What he did do, is gain a position where he was able to completely destroy the plot. So no, your analogy fails on every level.

Not sure how you have the effort to even acknowledge these unrelenting conspiracy nuts. Ran out of that a long time ago

[f1mad]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Someone needs to revise the English language. If you are a foreigner and English is your 2nd or 3rd language, I'm sorry.


Osama's son was murdered (as well as many others) therefore, his family was murdered. Just because some of his family still survive does not detract from the fact that his family was murdered.

Oh dear .

The only person that needs "to revise the English language" is you mate!

(Original post by Pads)
And what you need to learn is that the context of the sentence changes a words meaning.

"His family was murdered" suggests all his family were murdered(also you should of used were instead of was.

"Part of his family were murdered" would of been better English and what you should of said.

*Credit to Pads for taking the time to respond to a complete buffoon of a post.

Oh and: Family- "A group of people united in criminal activity".

Fits very nicely indeed .

[Pindar]

(Original post by Pads)
And what you need to learn is that the context of the sentence changes a words meaning.

"His family was murdered" suggests all his family were murdered(also you should of used were instead of was.

"Part of his family were murdered" would of been better English and what you should of said.


Also about conspiracies, one reason I don't believe most of them is it would be so hard to hide all the tracks. Explained in this bbc article today about lone gunmen - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17996498 . When there are a lot of people working on something there is intelligence to see but for one person it can be easy to hide your intentions.

It seems pointless to spend so much time arguing semantics. It seems people have an inability and unwillingness to tackle the real questions at hand, and would rather avoid them and nitpick with the meanings of words.

"Family" can refer to one or more people from a familial group. Therefore it is not incorrect to say someone's family was murdered. If you say their family wasn't murdered, then you are ignoring the fact that a member of their family was murdered. It would be a logical contradiction.

1. Osama's son was family
2. Osama's son was murdered
Therefore: Osama's family was murdered

1. Osama's son was family
2. Osama's son was murdered
Therefore: Osama's family wasn't murdered
= invalid argument.

This would be even less pointless if it wasn't true that a lot of Osama's family actually has been murdered by the US, just not all on the same night.

If you don't believe conspiracies can exist how do you explain huge operations with vast amounts of people running for many years uncovered such as Operation Gladio? COINTELPRO? MK ULTRA? Operation Mockingbird? Operation Monarch? Operation Ajax? US/UK/Aus Complicitness media blackout and cover up of the Indonesian genocide in East Timor? CIA torture, black prisons and rendition? What about when the Tuskegee Syphilis Study secretly experimented on hundreds of US citizens and purposefully injected people with syphilis? The Iran-Contra scandals? Do these historical events not exist to you?

There have been countless conspiracies just carried out by the CIA which were kept secret until decades later. What makes you so sure that the CIA is a reformed benevolent agency who'd never do anything like that again?

The only reason why there are so many conspiracy theories in the first place historians say is because of so many high-level prominent conspiracies have been undertaken and uncovered since the 1960s.

Read: Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopaedia

[Pindar]

(Original post by VeniViciVidi)
No, the CIA forms part of the government apparatus to exercise state-sanctioned use of force. Being allied to a government doesn't preclude you from being a terrorist neither

How is that not an obvious glaring contradiction to you? What's the difference.

(Original post by VeniViciVidi)
Palestine is not recognized as a state but as a territory. Hence, they are labelled a terrorist organization as they do not have a mandate for the use of force.

Is not recognised by whom? The State of Palestine is recognised by 130 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. So it is the small minority who do not recognise it.

Algeria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan
Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kosovo, Bolivia, Chad etc 33 UN member states in total do not recognise Israel as a state, only 160 UN states recognise Israel, so do you consider Israeli war crimes and terrorism "terrorist" actions?

Hamas is the elected government of Gaza, but you still consider it terrorist organisation. Is that not another contradiction on your part?

(Original post by VeniViciVidi)
There has been no evidence relating to false-flag operations in the United States security framework.

Really? I invite you to do some research as there is a long and well-documented history of the CIA engaging in false-flag terrorism. Again I'll mention Operation Gladio, Operation Ajax and Operation Condor as a few examples.

[Pindar]

(Original post by thisisnew)
Not sure how you have the effort to even acknowledge these unrelenting conspiracy nuts. Ran out of that a long time ago

Please enlighten me to what "conspiracy theory" are you talking about?

Or are you just one of those people who throws around the words "conspiracy theorist" to attempt to delegitimise anyone who doesn't share the same views? Even if they don't mention any type of conspiracy theory at all and only point out documented facts?

It must be that the conspiracy theory is in your mind. How else can you imagine a conspiracy theory merely from someone presenting news articles and documented facts? If you read the facts and then start thinking they suggest a conspiracy, that is your interpretation, not mine.

[Pindar]

(Original post by The_Last_Melon)
It is quite rare for the US to be forced to do anything nowadays. They are the only remaining superpower.

Usually when the truth becomes too obvious to obscure, people are forced to admit snippets of information they originally would have not liked to. That way public interest is sated and the masses can be distracted by something else.

That's why limited hangouts are so popular as a public relations device.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout

[Pindar]

(Original post by f1mad)
Oh dear .

The only person that needs "to revise the English language" is you mate!

Good one Especially coming from someone who doesn't know what the word "family" means.

(Original post by f1mad)
*Credit to Pads for taking the time to respond to a complete buffoon of a post.

Oh and: Family- "A group of people united in criminal activity".

Fits very nicely indeed .

Buffoon of a post? You haven't made a single intelligent contribution yet, all you did was fail to understand the word "family" and throw around the words "conspiracy theorists" as if that means something, because you haven't got an argument. Then you accuse people of being criminals, with no evidence!

Then you scoffed at the idea that the CIA has ever engaged in terrorism, when it's one of the most well-documented historical facts of the 20th century. Who looks like an idiot now?

You can't respond intelligently, because you don't have anything intelligent to say. You'll just attempt to ridicule something you don't understand because it doesn't conform to your sheltered world-view. Please educate yourself before embarrassing yourself further, I hope you take this as a valuable lesson.

[BusheSCFC]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
It's "you're" a massive terrorist. Not "your". And it's "defended", not "defeneded" whatever that means.
Also it's not "Quatada". No such person exists. It's "Qatada".

Anyway, where am I defending anyone? Are you getting a bit confused with another thread?
Not sure how you managed to infer that from me paraphrasing the articles. Read/spell carefully.

You is bare 'ard.

[f1mad]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Good one Especially coming from someone who doesn't know what the word "family" means.

As Pads rightly said; you're the one who cannot understand what "family" means. You can continue bitching about the semantics of the context in which that word should be used.

Bottom line is you were wrong, now shut up about it.

Buffoon of a post?

Thanks for admitting it. If you haven't already noticed; everyone here views you as one.

You can't respond intelligently, because you don't have anything intelligent to say. You'll just attempt to ridicule something you don't understand because it doesn't conform to your sheltered world-view. Please educate yourself before embarrassing yourself further, I hope you take this as a valuable lesson.

. The only one that needs educating is you.

(Original post by Stefan1991)

Anyway, where am I defending anyone? Are you getting a bit confused with another thread?
Not sure how you managed to infer that from me paraphrasing the articles. Read/spell carefully.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...ada+stefan1991

Good night!

[Pindar]

(Original post by BusheSCFC)
You is bare 'ard.

You "are" bare hard. Were you a retarded child?

[Pindar]

(Original post by f1mad)
As Pads rightly said; you're the one who cannot understand what "family" means. You can continue bitching about the semantics of the context in which that word should be used.

Bottom line is you were wrong, now shut up about it.

No... I was not incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Osama's son was gunned down by armed soldiers on the stairs of his home whilst completely unarmed. A son is a member of one's family. Even a 3 year old would get this.

(Original post by f1mad)
Thanks for admitting it. If you haven't already noticed; everyone here views you as one.

You really are lacking in English comprehension skills. How is that even remotely an admission? Notice how there's a question mark right after it, that should be a clue.

And speak for yourself, not everyone is as dimwitted as you.

(Original post by f1mad)
. The only one that needs educating is you.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...ada+stefan1991

Good night!

And what is that meant to prove? Where did I "defend" anyone in my OP? You're a very unconvincing troll.

No seriously, go educate yourself. Actually learn something instead of taking everything in life on face value like a gullible idiot!

[Steevee]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
How do you know of this agenda?



What conspiracy?
Your conspiracy is based completely on statements CIA officials have told you. It's like asking Harold Shipman if he's a good doctor. Would you accept what any criminal told you what happened on face value and without question?

Through various events that have happened throughout the world, through news stories from multiple outlets in multiple countries of multiple political persuasions, through talking to people that support such acts and seeing for myself on the internet evidence of such people, through talking to members of the Forces who have first hand experience with bomb making labs and who are friends of people who have had contact with SFSG and Anti-terror squads.

So what you're trying to say is, the mainstream accepted narrative is the conspiracy...and what you have made up is the truth?

[Pindar]

(Original post by Steevee)
Through various events that have happened throughout the world, through news stories from multiple outlets in multiple countries of multiple political persuasions, through talking to people that support such acts and seeing for myself on the internet evidence of such people, through talking to members of the Forces who have first hand experience with bomb making labs and who are friends of people who have had contact with SFSG and Anti-terror squads.

So what you're trying to say is, the mainstream accepted narrative is the conspiracy...and what you have made up is the truth?

By definition the "mainstream accepted" narrative is a conspiracy theory. It's a theory whose only source of proof is the word of the CIA officials who were themselves involved in the conspiracy to bomb planes.

You're saying because the CIA said it's true, it is. If they say their narrative is true, everyone must immediately accept it as the infallible truth because there's no way an authority would ever twist the truth How naive. Do you blindingly and naively accept anything that's told to you like a little child?

You need to look up the definition of conspiracy. The CIA you trust so much is by definition a conspiracy. Using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy, with a long history of lies, deceit, murder, assassination, torture, false flag terrorism and human experimentation.

And what I have made up? I haven't made anything up. Point to one thing I've made up. I only shoot documented facts.

[Steevee]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
By definition the "mainstream accepted" narrative is a conspiracy theory. It's a theory whose only source of proof is the word of the CIA officials who were themselves involved in the conspiracy to bomb planes.

You're saying because the CIA said it's true, it is. If they say their narrative is true, everyone must immediately accept it as the infallible truth because there's no way an authority would ever twist the truth How naive. Do you blindingly and naively accept anything that's told to you like a little child?

You need to look up the definition of conspiracy. The CIA you trust so much is by definition a conspiracy. Using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy, with a long history of lies, deceit, murder, assassination, torture, false flag terrorism and human experimentation.

And what I have made up? I haven't made anything up. Point to one thing I've made up. I only shoot documented facts.

Once again, looking at the given narrative, the framework of evidence, motive and history.

And you have taken what exactly to create your narrative? Again, I'll ask you to clarify, because from what I can see you are rejecting everything logical and, not putting anything in it's place

[Pindar]

(Original post by Steevee)


Once again, looking at the given narrative, the framework of evidence, motive and history.

And you have taken what exactly to create your narrative? Again, I'll ask you to clarify, because from what I can see you are rejecting everything logical and, not putting anything in it's place

I haven't made up any type of narrative, idiot. All I'm doing is analysing and critiquing the CIA establishment narrative. Taking any suggestion made as truth without question isn't logical in the slightest. You are kidding yourself if you think it is.

Why are you so gullible to believe any narrative which is given to you like a little sheep when we know as fact that narratives are routinely established to fit an agenda and mislead us? Use your brain.

Sheeple: "The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research."

"people who tend to accept and take statements at face value, especially if it is cited in mainstream media"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple

[Steevee]

(Original post by Stefan1991)


I haven't made up any type of narrative, idiot. All I'm doing is analysing and critiquing the CIA establishment narrative. Taking any suggestion made as truth without question isn't logical in the slightest. You are kidding yourself if you think it is.

Why are you so gullible to believe any narrative which is given to you like a little sheep when we know as fact that narratives are routinely established to fit an agenda and mislead us? Use your brain.

Sheeple: "The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research."

"people who tend to accept and take statements at face value, especially if it is cited in mainstream media"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple

Once again I'm going to ask you to clarify your narrative.

Come now, it shouldn't be that hard, clearly you can't accept the accepted one, so clarify yours. Tell me what you think happened.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Steevee)
Once again I'm going to ask you to clarify your narrative.

Come now, it shouldn't be that hard, clearly you can't accept the accepted one, so clarify yours. Tell me what you think happened.

I don't know what happened. I'm not the one pretending they do. That's you my friend.

I never said I didn't accept it. I'm saying I'm not accepting it without question. Like you.



"the facts are what I am going on, based on what appears to have happened and what the CIA and press have told us"
Yes, the Criminals Impersonating Authority and the MainStream-Media, the ultimate purveyors of infallible truth!

Please.