LOL i love how many negative rep points nick has now... ah man.

Yeah, dont disagree with these people politcally...lol

^ Maybe you should start an alternative revolution... Bad rep = Cool rep

See how much bad rep you can rack up. It's just an alternative way of seeing things! :laugh3:

lol, nah ill be back to green rep soon. there are enough silent people on here to give me good rep. but its a good idea.

Woah...since how long has it been this late in May?

When I voted yes I took oil gains into the reckoning. Yes Yes Yes.

 

 

 

ditto for me too, boss. I paid $5 USD for a gallon of gas last week!! :veryangry2:

i read this poll again and i still refuse to vote, you need to put a middle choice in there saying "The government has used the events of 9/11 to their advantage, but did not attack our own country" i just dont believe that happened, im sorry. I believe Osama Bin laden and Al Queda attacked us, sure they were trained by the CIA, IN THE 80's! We have had no control over them since then. I just dont see that happening

The CIA met with him on 2001. It was reported all over asia.....but locked out by the western media.....and we know why that was.

Some evidence please?

There were SO may reports. AND when you say evidence I bet you mean pictures of him meeting them and video's of them talking too.....if there were such pictures or videos then we wouldn't be having ths debate and the CIA would have been very silly to let that happen.....so lets agree that there can never be pictures or video's and that the CIA (government) would never agree to meeting him would they??

 

anyway...

REPORTS ALL GENERALLY IGNORED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA (what a suprise there then)

 

UK NEWSPAPER

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July

 

French report: terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital

 

Anthony Sampson

Thursday November 1, 2001

The Guardian

 

 

Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.

The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.

 

Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.

 

The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.

Intelligence sources say that another CIA agent was also present; and that Bin Laden was also visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, who had long had links with the Taliban, and Bin Laden. Soon afterwards Turki resigned, and more recently he has publicly attacked him in an open letter: "You are a rotten seed, like the son of Noah".

 

Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health. Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitis C, and can expect to live for only two more years.

 

According to Le Figaro, last year he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to his base at Kandahar in Afghanistan.

 

AND

http://www.rense.com/general16/bin.htm

 

CIA agent 'met Bin Laden in July'

 

by Toby Rose

Le Figaro today claimed that a CIA agent met Osama bin Laden in a Gulf hospital as recently as last July and received "precise information" about an imminent attack on the US.

 

According to the French daily, the agent met Bin Laden while he was being treated at the American Hospital in Dubai for a kidney infection. The agent was subsequently recalled to Washington.

 

The hospital today vigorously denied the report, which is based on a number of sources, including French secret services and a hospital administrator.

 

Bin Laden is said to have arrived in the UAE from the Pakistan city of Quetta, accompanied by his personal physician, four bodyguards and an Algerian nurse. He was visited by family members and leading Saudis. The paper claims he was treated in the urology department headed by Dr Terry Callaway.

 

Bin Laden is said to have severe medical problems and "the kidney infection has spread to his liver". Le Figaro claims a mobile dialysis machine was delivered to his Kandahar hideout in Afghanistan last year.

 

In a further twist, French secret service operatives are said to have met officials from the US embassy in Paris last August after the arrest of Algerian Djamel Beghal in the UAE.

 

A French secret service report on 7 September warned of possible attacks, and that the order to act would come from Afghanistan. Le Figaro says very precise information on targets for attack was communicated to the CIA

 

 

AND this is well documented V V V

http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm

 

 

HEY THERE'S TONNES MORE OF INFO ON THIS....YOU COULD HAVE FOUND IT YOURSELF.

"REPORTS ALL GENERALLY IGNORED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA (what a suprise there then)"

 

Ignored for a very good reason might i add.

"REPORTS ALL GENERALLY IGNORED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA (what a suprise there then)"

 

Ignored for a very good reason might i add.

 

right... because the government controls the media to a certain extent......

No, because they need enough evidence to talk about it. they have no problem bashing our goverment and bush all the time.

^Well the media is like that over in the UK as well. And they don't need a lot of evidence to create a moral panic about something.

^ exactly......people who believe that the mainstream TV media never ran the story because they "didn't have enough evidence" are kidding themselves.

FOR EXAMPLE - If I saw Osama Bin Laden getting smuggled into a hospital somewhere (anywhere, saudi arabia) and I went to the Police/News - you think I would be taken seriously? Do you think that anything would come of it? no...no chance. As it all would be CIA controlled. I would be told that I was mistaken and the mainstream media (who run stories like this AFTER security/police/CIA/FBI briefings) wouldn't be AT ALL interested.

 

Imagine if one report in a tiny news company said "Katie Holmes has swatted two flies while out shopping" - there would be a discussion on the news about it, wouldn't there?

 

The Osama getting treatment in an American hospital in Dubai story was MEGA news....you would think dozens of articles written about this would cause TV media frenzy. But MEGA news like this is ultra sensitive on an unbelieveable scale and they are people in position at all levels to quash such stories from gaining any credibility and it ends up with people like "MrCool011" saying...."it wasn't on TV or anything so there's not really any point in caring"

 

Pay attention and keep up man.

i belive that osama did it because mid east contries ar fed up of this politik what usa is

I haven't read all three pages of this so I'm sure I'm repeating somebody, but here's why this thread pisses me off:

 

It gives us only two options. I had to vote for "No, the government have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." I believe that? No! Of course not! The government never tells the whole truth, especially when led by George Bush, the worst leader this country has ever had. But you're sadly deluded if you honestly believe that the US government would do something like that completely on its own. Osama bin Laden is reponsible, case closed.

 

That said, you could make an argument for a self-inflicted wound based on the US's stupid policies that have killed people all over the world over the years. But I didn't see that in the polling options.

 

Narrowing down a complicated issue into a black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us issue is a classic Bush tactic, by the way. Does "You're with us or you're with the terrorists" sound familiar?

i belive that osama did it because mid east contries ar fed up of this politik what usa is

 

Partly true. Its more the USA has pissed them off alot and that the USA is their biggest threat.

I haven't read all three pages of this so I'm sure I'm repeating somebody, but here's why this thread pisses me off:

 

It gives us only two options. I had to vote for "No, the government have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." I believe that? No! Of course not! The government never tells the whole truth, especially when led by George Bush, the worst leader this country has ever had. But you're sadly deluded if you honestly believe that the US government would do something like that completely on its own. Osama bin Laden is reponsible, case closed.

 

That said, you could make an argument for a self-inflicted wound based on the US's stupid policies that have killed people all over the world over the years. But I didn't see that in the polling options.

 

Narrowing down a complicated issue into a black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us issue is a classic Bush tactic, by the way. Does "You're with us or you're with the terrorists" sound familiar?

 

PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDhi

 

oh and I agree with the whole only 2 sides thing. Its why I didn't vote.

Partly true. Its more the USA has pissed them off alot and that the USA is their biggest threat.

 

Do you realize that Osama Bin Laden is a smarter man than most Americans give him credit for? He's a military strategist. He would know that an unprovoked terrorist attack on the United States would only "awake a sleeping giant" and be his ultimate demise.

 

Think about it. Why would they randomly attack us? The whole story they give us is bullshit.

Do you realize that Osama Bin Laden is a smarter man than most Americans give him credit for? He's a military strategist. He would know that an unprovoked terrorist attack on the United States would only "awake a sleeping giant" and be his ultimate demise.

 

Think about it. Why would they randomly attack us? The whole story they give us is bullshit.

 

It was random? What were the USS Cole and African Embassy bombings then? The only reason why the WTC attacks happened is because the earlier attacks didn't garner enough attention. And as soon as the US thinks its safe again, there will be another attack (not my opinion, but terrorist experts').

And, I'm now worried we have been purposely led down a false road with the Pentagon attacks. The government keeping lots of evidence under lock and key....releasing bad footage of the crash which makes it look like they are covering up what actually hit the pentagon, when indeed a commercial jet probably DID hit the pentagon.

The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11.

At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected.

The government is steam valving this issue so as to garner as much interest as possible before blowing the entire matter out of the water. We know for a fact that the FBI seized the gas station camera footage and footage from hotels across the highway which would show the entire sequence of events and prove exactly what happened at the Pentagon.

 

The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things.

 

1) The government truly is frightened to death of releasing any images which accurately depict what happened at the Pentagon because it doesn't jive with the official version of 9/11.

 

2) Or the government knows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and has clear footage of the incident, but is deliberately releasing these speculative images in order to stoke the debate so it can later release the high quality video and use it to debunk the entire 9/11 truth movement.

 

The media obsession with this one facet of an entire smorgasbord of 9/11 questions, and their refusal to address more hardcore 9/11 evidence, leads us to fear the latter explanation is the case.

It was random? What were the USS Cole and African Embassy bombings then? The only reason why the WTC attacks happened is because the earlier attacks didn't garner enough attention. And as soon as the US thinks its safe again' date=' there will be another attack (not my opinion, but terrorist experts').[/quote']

 

I think thats partly true. clinton had many chance to capture bin laden and didnt. and then you had stupid laws being put in place tying different intelligence agencies hands behind their backs, along with clinton cuttining funding for the cia and nsa. its a mixture of those things.

Woah... a government conspiracy to make a conspiracy look like a conspiracy.

 

*head explodes*

haha.....yes, there might just be