[Steevee]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
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.

I see. So you're admitting you have no idea what happened, but you;re sure it can't be what seems to have happened? I see. Now, to most people, you're the conspiracy nut here

And I question, my dear, but the salient point is what the CIA and media have said makes sense, and until such a time as evidence comes to light to challenge this version of event, I am happy that my questions have been satisfied and I am willing to accept the version presented to us, whilst of course accepting that we will not have been told the whole truth.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Steevee)
I see. So you're admitting you have no idea what happened, but you;re sure it can't be what seems to have happened? I see. Now, to most people, you're the conspiracy nut here

Admit you have no idea what really happened either, then you will actually be making some progress in how you form your beliefs.

A good historian checks his sources and assesses their credibility before taking anything they say as the infallible truth. As I've already pointed out, your sources are consistent liars and deceivers, who have consistently in the past lied about these types of things.

Yet you are willing to believe whatever they say and without question, which makes you a gullible idiot.

You talk as if the CIA was not from it's very inception designed to be a propaganda machine. You really do need to read some history because you are lacking in basic knowledge.


So you only believe conspiracy theories which the CIA tells you to believe... even though by definition the CIA is an institutionalised conspiracy. The idiocy I encounter on these forums is sometimes palpable.

(Original post by Steevee)
And I question, my dear, but the salient point is what the CIA and media have said makes sense, and until such a time as evidence comes to light to challenge this version of event, I am happy that my questions have been satisfied and I am willing to accept the version presented to us, whilst of course accepting that we will not have been told the whole truth.

I'd prefer if you didn't enjoy addressing me as if I was your wife, I don't wish to participate in your strange and sordid fantasies.

So you believe anything which "makes sense"... A lot of things "make sense". Doesn't mean they are true. The narrative of 9/11 being an inside job makes more sense than the official one, that doesn't mean it's true. You are an idiot if you don't question or challenge anything you're told unless your superior comes along and tells you believe something else.

[Steevee]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Admit you have no idea what really happened either, then you will actually be making some progress in how you form your beliefs.

A good historian checks his sources and assesses their credibility before taking anything they say as the infallible truth. As I've already pointed out, your sources are consistent liars and deceivers, who have consistently in the past lied about these types of things.

Yet you are willing to believe whatever they say and without question, which makes you a gullible idiot.

You talk as if the CIA was not from it's very inception designed to be a propaganda machine. You really do need to read some history because you are lacking in basic knowledge.


So you only believe conspiracy theories which the CIA tells you to believe... even though by definition the CIA is an institutionalised conspiracy. The idiocy I encounter on these forums is sometimes palpable.



I'd prefer if you didn't enjoy addressing me as if I was your wife, I don't wish to participate in your strange and sordid fantasies.

So you believe anything which "makes sense"... A lot of things "make sense". Doesn't mean they are true. The narrative of 9/11 being an inside job makes more sense than the official one, that doesn't mean it's true. You are an idiot if you don't question or challenge anything you're told unless your superior comes along and tells you believe something else.

Oh my dear, you do need to calm down. People like you are so funny, the ones that think they alone see the true world, that everyone else is a sheep, it's comedy. It really is. :')

I'll repeat myself once more. The narrative given by the CIA and media, in tandem with the facts we have tally. Looking at the history and motives behind why terror groups attack the West and previous operations similar to this one, things tally. And yes, even taking into account the sordid history of the CIA, a version of the official explanation seems the most plausable at this time. I have questioned, I have looked at the story. In fact I dare say I've questioned just a little harder than you

You're line of thinking seems to be 'They've lied before, they're certainly lieing about everything right damn now!' Rather than properly examining motives, the MO of international intelligence agencies and so on. Again, it's funny.

And I would just like to point out once again the hilarity of you essentially stating 'I have no idea what happened, but it sure as heck can't be anything like what they said because they don't alway tell the truth, and sometimes, sometimes they even totally lie!'

[Pindar]

(Original post by Steevee)
Oh my dear, you do need to calm down. People like you are so funny, the ones that think they alone see the true world, that everyone else is a sheep, it's comedy. It really is. :')

No.... that is you who believes the government narrative is always the "true world" no matter what. I don't believe I know the "true world" but I'm a damn sight closer than you because I actually question things before believing them.

(Original post by Steevee)
I'll repeat myself once more. The narrative given by the CIA and media, in tandem with the facts we have tally.

No... you don't have any "facts". You only have what the CIA has told you which you have decided to immediately accept as fact. What other facts other than that one source do you have? Exactly. None.

Now stop pretending you know anything.

(Original post by Steevee)
Looking at the history and motives behind why terror groups attack the West and previous operations similar to this one, things tally. And yes, even taking into account the sordid history of the CIA, a version of the official explanation seems the most plausable at this time. I have questioned, I have looked at the story. In fact I dare say I've questioned just a little harder than you

Ignoring that one CIA/government source, what do you know? Nothing.
You don't even bother to check your sources. You're a godsend to public relation manipulators. I bet they could convince you it's in your own interests to give up your freedom and feed your family to the wolves. Seriously, what won't you believe? Were you one of those people frothing at the mouth about "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

(Original post by Steevee)
You're line of thinking seems to be 'They've lied before, they're certainly lieing about everything right damn now!' Rather than properly examining motives, the MO of international intelligence agencies and so on. Again, it's funny.

Stop putting words in peoples mouths to make your stupid little worthless straw man argument. I never said "they've lied before therefore they must be lying now". However an intelligent person would see that someone who has lied many times before, is likely to lie again, and might actually question if that is the case and consider whether it damages their credibility. Unlike you.

(Original post by Steevee)
And I would just like to point out once again the hilarity of you essentially stating 'I have no idea what happened, but it sure as heck can't be anything like what they said because they don't alway tell the truth, and sometimes, sometimes they even totally lie!'

Liar. I would like to point out the hilarity that I didn't say any such thing. Nice one for exposing yourself as a lying idiot.
Now jog on before you embarrass yourself further

[lancelot]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
After announcing they had thwarted a new terrorist attack against America and captured a terrorist red-handed, the CIA now claim that it was actually their mole in Al Qaeda, who managed to persuade the group he wanted to carry out a suicide bombing. A highly sophisticated underwear bomb was designed, then whilst carrying the bomb the CIA operative was apprehended by his superiors before the bomb could board a plane destined for America.

The bomber's name has been made secret and is now said to be taking safe haven in Saudi Arabia. Fresh urgent calls for tighter airport security have been made to be able to examine contents of all passengers' underwear and more stringent screening in airports.

The State Department and the White House had assured the American public that they knew of no al-Qaeda plots against the U.S. at all around the anniversary of bin Laden's death. The operation was carried out over the past few weeks, officials said. "We have no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the anniversary of bin Laden's death," White House press secretary Jay Carney said on April 26. On May 1, the Department of Homeland Security said, "We have no indication of any specific, credible threats or plots against the U.S. tied to the one-year anniversary of bin Laden's death."

However now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has admitted she was aware “for some time” of a foiled terrorist plot to blow up a U.S. airliner and said she’s “known about the efforts to do something like it even longer.”

And then the White House revealed Obama was briefed about the plot in early April. The Associated Press learned of the plot last week but only broke the story late Monday after being censored and told by the White House that they couldn't publish it for several days.

Obama has been recently celebrating the anniversary of his successful assassination of Osama Bin Laden and his family, this latest news he hopes was timed well and will boost his popularity for the upcoming 2012 elections, and serve as a reminder that the age of terror and fear is not yet over.

Thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18000351
http://www.globalnews.ca/al+qaida+bo...254/story.html

EIther youve failed to understand or deliberatly altered part of the BBC report - the bomb wasnt given to the mole by the CIA, the mole received it directly from Al qaeda in yemen under surveillance, and then handed it to the US prior to the proposed attack.
Also the mole wasnt a CIA one, he was recruited by the Saudi inteelgince form the purpose of infitrating al qaeda (seems he was british too). I m sure the US and various allied secret services around the world have double agents infilitrating terrorist cells.

[Pindar]

(Original post by lancelot)
EIther youve failed to understand or deliberatly altered part of the BBC report - the bomb wasnt given to the mole by the CIA, the mole received it directly from Al qaeda in yemen under surveillance, and then handed it to the US prior to the proposed attack.
Also the mole wasnt a CIA one, he was recruited by the Saudi inteelgince form the purpose of infitrating al qaeda (seems he was british too). I m sure the US and various allied secret services around the world have double agents infilitrating terrorist cells.

Where did I say the the bomb was given to the mole by the CIA? I never once said that. Maybe you've failed to understand?

Anyway, who knows? Why are you pretending like you are so sure? How do you know that wasn't the case? There are hundreds of contradictions being reported. I've already mentioned some.

"Before the bomber could choose his target or buy his ticket, however, the CIA swooped in and seized the bomb."
http://www.dailyregister.com/topstor...ble-plane-bomb

"Officials said the leaders of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) instructed a suicide bomber based in Yemen to board any flight and time of his choice, with an explosive device under his clothes, the Associated Press reported. However, the would-be bomber had been stopped before reaching an airport. It was the CIA who intervened to seize the bomb"
http://www.theupcoming.co.uk/2012/05...ear-bomb-plan/

"The device was given to the CIA by a government outside Yemen, officials said."
http://www.latimes.com/topic/politic...OV000009.topic

"Rep. King suggests administration may have misled public on bomb plot, calls for review"
"The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee suggested Tuesday that the Obama administration may have misled the public"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1uNz6SF59

[lancelot]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Where did I say the the bomb was given to the mole by the CIA? I never once said that. Maybe you've failed to understand?

Anyway, who knows? Why are you pretending like you are so sure? How do you know that wasn't the case? There are hundreds of contradictions being reported. I've already mentioned some.

"Before the bomber could choose his target or buy his ticket, however, the CIA swooped in and seized the bomb."
http://www.dailyregister.com/topstor...ble-plane-bomb

"Officials said the leaders of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) instructed a suicide bomber based in Yemen to board any flight and time of his choice, with an explosive device under his clothes, the Associated Press reported. However, the would-be bomber had been stopped before reaching an airport. It was the CIA who intervened to seize the bomb"
http://www.theupcoming.co.uk/2012/05...ear-bomb-plan/

"The device was given to the CIA by a government outside Yemen, officials said."
http://www.latimes.com/topic/politic...OV000009.topic

"Rep. King suggests administration may have misled public on bomb plot, calls for review"
"The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee suggested Tuesday that the Obama administration may have misled the public"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1uNz6SF59

I got the inmpression that was a point you were trying to infer - if you werent, fair enough. But you did claim "CIA now claim that it was actually their mole in Al Qaeda, who managed to persuade the group he wanted to carry out a suicide bombing" which isnt stated int eh BBC report - in fact it says it was soley ana laqaeda plot, for which this mole volunteered to be the sacrificial pawn.
It is more likelt hat this operation was overseen by he saudis than the cia for the most part. Either way its a source of intelligence for the cia now re the inside workings of al qaeda yemen.

Your other links dont really show anything, except some minor differences in the various reported details of moles detaining - whoch is probably more due to do with weak journalism than anything else

[Pindar]

(Original post by lancelot)
I got the inmpression that was a point you were trying to infer - if you werent, fair enough. But you did claim "CIA now claim that it was actually their mole in Al Qaeda, who managed to persuade the group he wanted to carry out a suicide bombing" which isnt stated int eh BBC report - in fact it says it was soley ana laqaeda plot, for which this mole volunteered to be the sacrificial pawn.

I never said the CIA's double agent persuaded the group to carry out a suicide bombing, I said he persuaded the group that he wanted to carry out a suicide bombing, which might not be in the BBC report but is definitely mentioned in the various articles I've posted and how he ended up being the bomber.

However, we really don't know much involvement the CIA operative and the CIA really had in organising and carrying out the plot, apart from their assertion that they were quite easily able to infiltrate the terrorist group, plant a convincing mole that managed to fool all of Al Qaeda and managed to singlehandedly sabotage the plot from the inside. Al Qaeda didn't even give the bomber any specific instructions. I suspect if it's true it would be now very difficult to ever plant a mole in Al Qaeda again, and it's strange this has never been done before if it was so easy, and that Al Qaeda didn't already have their guard up for strange men turning up out of nowhere and immediately wanting to be involved in one of their plots. Anyway, for all we know they thought up the plot, put it to Al Qaeda, then helped organise and encourage the plot just to gain more information, so they could publicly foil it as a P.R stunt. They may have even helped design the bomb, or encouraged the plot so they could see what bomb they would get. For all we know they turned the mole at the last minute before the plot could be carried out. For all we know Al Qaeda might not even have been involved. We can't make frivolous assumptions based on hearsay.

(Original post by lancelot)
It is more likelt hat this operation was overseen by he saudis than the cia for the most part. Either way its a source of intelligence for the cia now re the inside workings of al qaeda yemen.

Your other links dont really show anything, except some minor differences in the various reported details of moles detaining - whoch is probably more due to do with weak journalism than anything else

Well it's all pretty weak journalism, every article just takes the word of what some official has said without checking anything out. That is the nature of the media today.
The double agent story working with Saudi Intelligence does manage to conveniently cover all their bases though doesn't it, for how they say this plot was foiled and what happened to the double agent afterwards, apparently fleeing to Saudi Arabia and taking safe haven there. For why it was leaked a terrorist attack had been prevented and no person was there available and able to be arrested and have their face plastered over the news.

The FBI are now investigating who leaked the information about the plot out to the press and the Obama administration are aggressively probing the leaks.

"In an appearance Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Robert Mueller said the FBI is examining the explosive device. He said the scheme hatched in Yemen demonstrates that it's essential for Congress to reauthorize counterterrorism tools enacted in 2008. Some of these programs expire at year's end."

Well it's a good job they've now got a reason to reauthorise those powers.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

[robin22391]

(Original post by the bear)
so his family was not killed

i thought the usa say they dont assassinate people, or is he an exception.

[Steevee]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
No.... that is you who believes the government narrative is always the "true world" no matter what. I don't believe I know the "true world" but I'm a damn sight closer than you because I actually question things before believing them.



No... you don't have any "facts". You only have what the CIA has told you which you have decided to immediately accept as fact. What other facts other than that one source do you have? Exactly. None.

Now stop pretending you know anything.



Ignoring that one CIA/government source, what do you know? Nothing.
You don't even bother to check your sources. You're a godsend to public relation manipulators. I bet they could convince you it's in your own interests to give up your freedom and feed your family to the wolves. Seriously, what won't you believe? Were you one of those people frothing at the mouth about "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?



Stop putting words in peoples mouths to make your stupid little worthless straw man argument. I never said "they've lied before therefore they must be lying now". However an intelligent person would see that someone who has lied many times before, is likely to lie again, and might actually question if that is the case and consider whether it damages their credibility. Unlike you.



Liar. I would like to point out the hilarity that I didn't say any such thing. Nice one for exposing yourself as a lying idiot.
Now jog on before you embarrass yourself further

But that's just not the case though. You seem to see agreeing with what seems the most plausible explanation with the information we have, as blindly believing what I am told. You're like the '9/11 truthers', 'Don't agree it was a conspiracy? There's no way you have examined the facts and come to your own conclusion, you must be a blind sheep believeing whatever the government tell you!'

I have the same facts as you have.

And I bet you're the kind of person that believes the Freemasons are a secret cult that rul all of Europe

Now you see, what I've done is taking your inference and made it explicit, I have never claimed you said such. Hence why I put the words such as 'like', or 'you are essentially saying', not 'you said'

[PeterOkenla11]

Meh,
I reckon there was no attempted terrorist attack and the 'underwear bomb' was created my US intelligence officials. Who now went on to claim they had foiled an attack that that never existed or had any involvement with a terrorist organization.
Oh well hopefully the truth will coem out one day, it always does :/
Hopefully im sitll alive by then!
So i can say 'i told you so!'

[A level Az]

(Original post by Steevee)
But that's just not the case though. You seem to see agreeing with what seems the most plausible explanation with the information we have, as blindly believing what I am told. You're like the '9/11 truthers', 'Don't agree it was a conspiracy? There's no way you have examined the facts and come to your own conclusion, you must be a blind sheep believeing whatever the government tell you!'

I have the same facts as you have.

And I bet you're the kind of person that believes the Freemasons are a secret cult that rul all of Europe

Now you see, what I've done is taking your inference and made it explicit, I have never claimed you said such. Hence why I put the words such as 'like', or 'you are essentially saying', not 'you said'

Sorry but if you accept the American government's version of 9/11 then you're not a very intelligent person nor are you a man of science, though this can already be concluded from your sig

[JonathanNorth]

This certainly seems plausible.

I have no reason to doubt the story, so it is entirely possible that the CIA did infiltrate Al Qaeda. I don't know why people are arguing about this. It is such a non-story to be arguing over.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Steevee)
But that's just not the case though. You seem to see agreeing with what seems the most plausible explanation with the information we have, as blindly believing what I am told. You're like the '9/11 truthers', 'Don't agree it was a conspiracy? There's no way you have examined the facts and come to your own conclusion, you must be a blind sheep believeing whatever the government tell you!'

No, it's the fact that you outwardly and arrogantly reject the possibility of a government conspiracy when by definition the government was involved in a terrorist conspiracy, and then taking and basing all your strongly held beliefs on a very unreliable source at face-value, and then attempting to ridicule anyone who even attempts to question it. It is the definition of a sheep, who believes that whatever the government puts out must always be true.

You need your head checking. You can't be that ignorant of history. You really need to stop blindly believing anything you're told, it's pathetic.

(Original post by Steevee)
I have the same facts as you have.

And yet you are arrogantly claiming you've come to the right conclusion and you know exactly what happened You know nothing, sir. That is quite obvious. Your opinion is worthless on topics such as these, you will simply repeat whatever you heard on your little TV screen, source of all your knowledge, without question.
The opinion of a moron who can't think for themselves. If I wanted to hear the government's side of the story without it being questioned I'd turn on BBC news.

Get off your backside and do some actual research if you want to have an opinion. Otherwise, no one cares about your uninformed beliefs.

(Original post by Steevee)
And I bet you're the kind of person that believes the Freemasons are a secret cult that rul all of Europe

"OHOHOH CUZ u beleef that government doesn't tell the truth 100% of the time and the cia of all people sometimes lie that meens u bleef in worldwide super conspiracies involving FREEMASONS!!!!1 MASONIC CONSPIRACEEE!!1"

You really are a public relations godsend. You are the product of complete manipulation, you have been programmed to believe that the idea that the government or secret intelligence agencies sometimes involve themselves in conspiracies is comparable to the belief that Elvis is still alive and that the Moon landings were filmed in a Hollywood studio. You really are 100% brainwashed. Perfect example of how society is so dumbed down.

Government can do no wrong in your eyes can it? I'm sure you would have made a great little robotic sheeple servant following your orders in the third reich, buying into all the Goebbels propaganda and licking nazi boots. You really are a pathetic caricature of a mindless drone bordering on hilarity, if it wasn't so sad...

(Original post by Steevee)
Now you see, what I've done is taking your inference and made it explicit, I have never claimed you said such. Hence why I put the words such as 'like', or 'you are essentially saying', not 'you said'

Where have I mentioned ANYTHING about freemasons? NOTHING I said has anything to do with your little stupid worthless straw man argument, stop pretending like it does. You also need to learn what a straw man argument is because you use it for almost everything you say.

Try actually attacking what I'm saying rather than making stuff up about freemasons and attacking that because you're not intelligent enough to criticise the real stuff.

[Pindar]

(Original post by JonathanNorth)
This certainly seems plausible.

I have no reason to doubt the story, so it is entirely possible that the CIA did infiltrate Al Qaeda. I don't know why people are arguing about this. It is such a non-story to be arguing over.

No one has never attempted to make up a cover story which wasn't somewhat plausible. We are talking about the greatest minds and propagandists in the world here, who also happen to be gatekeepers of all the available knowledge on the incident. It's not a good idea to take everything they say at face-value...

The only way we know anywhere close to the real truth are when the classified documents are eventually apparently "leaked" or declassified decades down the line... and even then they're probably heavily redacted, doctored and falsified. A real life Ministry of Truth. (or Minitrue in Newspeak)

[alex5455]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Sorry to be a nitpicker, but yes Osama's young son was murdered when armed soldiers raided their home.

Also his friend and his family - his brother and brother's wife - were murdered in the home invasion. Osama's 12 year old daughter and her mother were also seriously injured and emotionally scarred after watching their father and husband shot in the head in front of them, and his bloody corpse dragged out of their home.

he deserved it though


since op seems to have misunderstood ( no surprise given his intelligence shown so far) i meant osama deserved to die not the child

[Steevee]

(Original post by A level Az)
Sorry but if you accept the American government's version of 9/11 then you're not a very intelligent person nor are you a man of science, though this can already be concluded from your sig

Come at me bro.

Seriously, come at me. I've trawled through all of the evidence from 9/11, and for a while I was a skeptic, but I am not anymore, because I have examined all the 'truther' evidence, and it has way more holes than the official story. So really, come on, debate me. Bring something to the table.

(Original post by Stefan1991)
No, it's the fact that you outwardly and arrogantly reject the possibility of a government conspiracy when by definition the government was involved in a terrorist conspiracy, and then taking and basing all your strongly held beliefs on a very unreliable source at face-value, and then attempting to ridicule anyone who even attempts to question it. It is the definition of a sheep, who believes that whatever the government puts out must always be true.

You need your head checking. You can't be that ignorant of history. You really need to stop blindly believing anything you're told, it's pathetic.



And yet you are arrogantly claiming you've come to the right conclusion and you know exactly what happened You know nothing, sir. That is quite obvious. Your opinion is worthless on topics such as these, you will simply repeat whatever you heard on your little TV screen, source of all your knowledge, without question.
The opinion of a moron who can't think for themselves. If I wanted to hear the government's side of the story without it being questioned I'd turn on BBC news.

Get off your backside and do some actual research if you want to have an opinion. Otherwise, no one cares about your uninformed beliefs.



"OHOHOH CUZ u beleef that government doesn't tell the truth 100% of the time and the cia of all people sometimes lie that meens u bleef in worldwide super conspiracies involving FREEMASONS!!!!1 MASONIC CONSPIRACEEE!!1"

You really are a public relations godsend. You are the product of complete manipulation, you have been programmed to believe that the idea that the government or secret intelligence agencies sometimes involve themselves in conspiracies is comparable to the belief that Elvis is still alive and that the Moon landings were filmed in a Hollywood studio. You really are 100% brainwashed. Perfect example of how society is so dumbed down.

Government can do no wrong in your eyes can it? I'm sure you would have made a great little robotic sheeple servant following your orders in the third reich, buying into all the Goebbels propaganda and licking nazi boots. You really are a pathetic caricature of a mindless drone bordering on hilarity, if it wasn't so sad...


Where have I mentioned ANYTHING about freemasons? NOTHING I said has anything to do with your little stupid worthless straw man argument, stop pretending like it does. You also need to learn what a straw man argument is because you use it for almost everything you say.

Try actually attacking what I'm saying rather than making stuff up about freemasons and attacking that because you're not intelligent enough to criticise the real stuff.

Here you go again, do you struggle with reading my dear? I do not offhand reject the possibility of conspiracy, I look at the evidence in front of me and conclude that I do not see a conspiracy here.

So umm, show me this research then? Because once again I'll point out we have exactly the same facts on the situation. And yet, when I come to my conclusion I must be wrong, and when you come to yours, you must be correct. And then you belittle me as being blind and believeing anything without facts, when, by definition you have no facts either then.

Oh come now. Are you trolling? I merely reflected your own assertions back on you, and you try to take the high ground? Please, for the sake of humanity, be a troll.

I already attacked what you say. You couldn't defend yourself so you began throwing insults around and repeating yourself, appealing to ridicule and so forth. I am decided, you are a troll. Or a halfwit. either way sir, I'm done with you.

Oh, and for the inevitable 'Ha! You're running away because I'm right!' sort of thing you'll be thinking or writing, well..*pat* whatever you say darlin'

[Pindar]

(Original post by alex5455)
he deserved it though

That's interesting. Why did Osama's young unarmed son in his pyjamas deserve to be murdered for the alleged crimes of his father?

Did his 12 year old daughter also deserve to watch her father murdered in cold blood before her very eyes? Will that not stay with her for the rest of her life?

[Doctor.]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
That's interesting. Why did Osama's young unarmed son in his pyjamas deserve to be murdered

That's actually really sickening. I don't think anyone can justify that tbh.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Steevee)
Here you go again, do you struggle with reading my dear? I do not offhand reject the possibility of conspiracy, I look at the evidence in front of me and conclude that I do not see a conspiracy here.

You have no evidence "dear". Stop pretending you have. You only have baseless assertions from one unreliable and discredited source. You fail at any notion of deduction.

Maybe if you would actually listen and take on board the errors of your ways then I might not have to keep repeating myself. Unfortunately your thick skull is impervious to actually understanding any criticism.

(Original post by Steevee)
So umm, show me this research then? Because once again I'll point out we have exactly the same facts on the situation. And yet, when I come to my conclusion I must be wrong, and when you come to yours, you must be correct. And then you belittle me as being blind and believeing anything without facts, when, by definition you have no facts either then.

Do your own research. Stop sitting in front of your television screen with your mouth drooling like a mindless drone. When you've developed yourself into an analytical and skeptical mind, then we'll talk. At the moment, you're seriously underdeveloped. You've reached the mental age of a 12 year old.

I'm not arrogant enough to actually have come to any solid conclusions yet, since there is very little solid evidence to base it on. That is you.
There is clearly more than one possibility.

(Original post by Steevee)
Oh come now. Are you trolling? I merely reflected your own assertions back on you, and you try to take the high ground? Please, for the sake of humanity, be a troll.

Are you trolling? You think any criticism of government sources is tantamount to believing in worldwide masonic conspiracies. Only an idiot or troll would liken the two.

(Original post by Steevee)
I already attacked what you say. You couldn't defend yourself so you began throwing insults around and repeating yourself, appealing to ridicule and so forth. I am decided, you are a troll. Or a halfwit. either way sir, I'm done with you.

Oh, and for the inevitable 'Ha! You're running away because I'm right!' sort of thing you'll be thinking or writing, well..*pat* whatever you say darlin'

No... you're running away because you never had anything intelligent to say in the first place. If I was you I'd be too embarrassed to look at myself in the mirror. Keep living in your ignorant fantasyland where everything is as it seems on first glance, it does not concern me. I only have pity for such mindless simpletons.