ahmadinejad sparks mass UN walk out

And B, trying to change the subject is not a very good response. It just makes it all the more clear that you have no good response. Which makes me wonder, why are you defending holocaust denial? Do you have no shame?

Fair enough. He's a nut job for the 9/11 thing also.

True cate. Seems we're flogging a dead horse anyway.

To get back to your thread, as sad as it may be, I wouldn't be surprised if, amongst all the conspiracy theories about, there is some basis for these. It wouldn't be the first time the US government hides/distorts the truth in order to achieve whatever political objective/ambition they may have. Even if it means taking lives.

I recognize that fact, but that still doesn't equate to any type of definitive or logical answer leading people to believe in a serious fashion that 9-11 was caused in some way by the US government. Like I said before, it's a leap beyond facts and certainly nothing more than assumption, hearsay and cause, but not fact...and facts determine guilt or innocence.

Byrnzie wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

I find it very ironic that all the people who call for the "truth" and similar on these matters completely throw out all the basic aspects of a fair, balanced and judicious court system applied to the issue simply in order to get their own answer, which in many respects, they already believe.[/u] Why do you think that is?? Perhaps a lack of real fact?

What people are asking for is for all of the 115 points I posted above to be addressed in a court of law, or in an independent enquiry. And all of the points above are facts - every one of them. They're not just whimsical notions thrown out for the sheer sake of it, but serious ommisions in the original government investigation.

Yes I'm very familiar with that document and group, and albeit mention of such a thing is discussed in passing, it is taken out of the time frame and context. Analyzing a policy piece and manifesting it into some type of smoking gun for saying "hey look, they said they would do or allow something like this to happen" is nothing more than misguided commentary and all after the fact. And to be clear, if you read that document thoroughly, there's plenty of things discussed which have never, ever come to fruition about security in our nation amongst many other topics... so to take one sentence and turn it into evidence of some sort after the fact of the event is misplaced to say the least.

In terms of your comments about the government, I obviously admit there's plenty of information that has gone unanswered or is deemed classified for whatever the reasons (some perhaps valid, some perhaps not), but in the end of the day, the amount of factual evidence doesn't amount to all that much. Other than saying, the government either dropped the ball or ignored such warnings, which is easy to say from the outside, but we really don't know the other half of the story and perhaps never will. I'm not defending the government, but merely detracting from applying guilt when the proof is not thorough or solid - the rest is completely a leap. So in sum, I find it ridiculous and over the top when anyone applies guilt to because of that.. whether it's this topic or any other crime in society. I would hope most people do the same as that is justice, innocence til proven guilty.. not the other way around.

Byrnzie wrote:

Do you think the neo-cons benefitted in any way from 9/11? You ever read the 'Project For a New American Century' reports from late 2000-early 2001? They got exactly what they were looking for.

You say that suggesting the U.S government had a hand in the attacks - even just to the extent that they had prior knowledge of them and turned a blind eye to them - is a leap beyond facts? It's a fact the top brass of the Bush Adminstration were in possession of documents that outlined the attacks using hijacked aircraft and they chose to ignore that information. And that's just the start of it. Did you read the 115 points raised above? Can you account for any of them? Why won't the U.S government allow an independent enquiry if they have nothing to hide?

What was his new revelation that the world is flat?

tonifig8 wrote:

Excellent post/comments Byrnzie -

the facts are the facts - I'm not saying I support Ahmadinejad or that I rather live in Iran(lame, :roll: ), but what Ahmadinejad is saying has a lot of truths to it. And Byrnzie did an excellent job of representing some of those facts, with out being biased .....

:thumbup:

Yeah.
The comment that some of the board members would rather live in Iran is as lame as the comment that people who disagree with any given administration or policy "hate America" ("and should leave"), or even Bush's comment that "either you are with 'US' or you are with the terrorists". The two do not logically follow. ever.

As far as Ahmadinejad's comments, this has been discussed here ad naseum.

Ahmadinejad has made it exceedingly clear that when he said the holocaust was a "myth" (which according to arabic experts is a mistranslation any way, a word that doesn't even exist in arabic) that what he was trying to communicate (and what the rest of his speech FOLLOWING that specific sentence actually makes explicit) is that the FACTS of the holocaust have been woven by those wishing to USE the even for the furtherance of their own agenda have been turned in to a "myth" (ie. a continually repeated story) about the plight of the jews.

Again, he has made it EXCEEDINGLY clear that his intention was NOT to "deny" that the holocaust happened, but that he was attempting to convey that the murder of jews in the holocaust was OVERemphasized (and he does NOT mean "distorted" or "numbers were misleading") by those with an agenda as a PRETEXT for the furtherance of a Zionist state and agenda.

TO BE FAIR, HIS POINT IS VALID.
The death of the jews in WWII was absolutely the largest "pretext" used for the establishment of the State of Israel (the LITERAL definition of "Zionism"!) in 1948.

You may agree or disagree with the modern relevance of Amadinejad's gripe, but his comment is factual and, if you ask me, valid.

The murder of jews in the holocaust, WAS, in FACT, USED to justify the establishment of a Zionist state.

I don't lend ANY more support to Ahmadinejad than pure recognition of the fact that his comment was DELIBERATELY distorted to
a. obscure his ACTUAL point
b. discredit his image on the international scene, and to drum up global antagonism to his regime.

Obviously religious fundamentalist dictatorship is an outmoded governmental form, and "his" "kind" should be on the phase out in the "new order of the ages".


PS - I also happen to think he is right about current US antagonism to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has REPEATEDLY given Iran the stamp of approval in ALL of their reports on Iran's nuclear program. Their current enrichment scheme is NO WHERE NEAR the levels of enrichment needed for nuclear WEAPONS. Again, the IAEA has stated FULL compliance with international standards for ENERGY production, and has stated in no uncertain terms that Iran CONTINUES to enrich uranium to NOTHING OVER 4%, as opposed TO THE OVER 94% NEEDED FOR WEAPONS PRODUCTION.

This is international-power-politics being played out, with Iran being "victimized" by the US for attempting to secure a future energy independence given the uncertain (and potentially dwindling) nature of Iran's oil reserves. That is to say, the US (and all Anglophile governments) DO NOT WANT A STRONG INDEPENDENT IRANIAN STATE.

It is anathema to their broader goal of an Anglicized "new economic world order".
If need be, i can quote SPECIFIC reference to this FACT by NWO insider historian Carroll Quigley, himself.
This has been a CENTURY (or more) long antagonism between Iran and the Anglophile establishment. It is nothing new.

Also, he has openly proclaimed his desire to destroy Israel!

How is it that so many people speak of peace, yet defend a man who would murder innocents? It was mentioned in an earlier post, that, if Israel "destroyed" Iran, civilians would perish. I'm guessing no civilians would die if this prick fired a nuclear-tipped rocket into Tel-Aviv?

What the hell? Seriously?