Exactly... NORAD didn't fail to escort Payne Stewart's plane, however they're told to 'stand down' by Cheney on 9/11.
real Muslims don't do any of this terrorism, it's the violent fundamentalists, similar to what you'll find in a Christian flavor on this very board.The attackers, devoted Muslims, were using drugs like cocaine and LSD. True Muslims will not use drugs or alcohol. Remember, they kill people for that stuff. So we are to believe that this is from a group of radical Muslims?
I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out that these guys who did the attack had mental illness issues or something else that made them vulnerable for manipulation.
Train them, brainwash them, drug them up and turn them loose to kill.
Oh, but who pays attention to things like "facts".. Bill Oreilly told us that we are unpatriotic *******s for thinking such foolish nonsense...Exactly... NORAD didn't fail to escort Payne Stewart's plane, however they're told to 'stand down' by Cheney on 9/11.
Same thing in the 7/7 bombings. Same MO.
They realized that the more complex they make their attacks, the more holes they leave open for smart people to see through.. So they kept this little bit og false flag terrorism as simple as possible.. And STILL there are holes..Did anyone really expect a REAL terrorist attack?
Right and the violent fundamentalists don't consume alcohol and drugs before their death do they?real Muslims don't do any of this terrorism, it's the violent fundamentalists, similar to what you'll find in a Christian flavor on this very board.
: : : : :Hamid said that it was a "badly planned" operation that had gone horribly wrong.
"The Americans executed the 9/11 attack perfectly. They managed the media very well. The Indians tried to repeat the formula but goofed up. The idiots made a complete mess of it."
I get suspicious of these types of events when you can see the projected outcome. Did 9/11 benefit Islam in any way? No. Who did it benefit? Big government and financiers who control them.Why is it so hard to believe that these things aren't orchestrated by governments? That people motivated on the death and destruction of others can't achieve their aims?
Every year a few Americans go on the rampage and kill tens of people, are these massacres orchestrated by your government?
If you want to believe 9/11 and these Indian attacks were "false flag" attacks, then fine. But please don't tell me that 7/7 was orchestrated by the British government because I would have to say that's utter bull.
As was said in another post, a Mosque in India was refusing to bury the terrorists because they said what they did was un-Islamic, it is forbidden to attack civilians.
I believe there are over 50 Islamic sects in the world, much like there are many, many interpretations of Christianity.
As for these guys been off their heads on drugs, what does that matter? If they hadn't of been on drugs would that make things better? If they'd done it sober they would still have been "off their heads" to carry out such an attack. And yes, I've heard about these Jihadi's off their heads on drugs before. They'll justify whatever, even murder, if they think it is in their cause to do so.
Psychotic murder is psychotic murder, it doesn't matter if it's done by fundamentalists in foreign lands, homegrown "fundies" in Britain or born and bred Yanks shooting up churches, schools, colleges,malls or blowing up FBI buildings.
Why are they so quick to pin this on Pakistan?I get suspicious of these types of events when you can see the projected outcome. Did 9/11 benefit Islam in any way? No. Who did it benefit? Big government and financiers who control them.
I don't know for sure if the incident in Mumbai was an inside job or not. I only suspect. Why are they so quick to pin this on Pakistan? Why didn't police fire back? How could the boats have evaded India's radar? Why did they relax security when they were pre-warned? This isn't the first time India has tried to pin a "terrorist" attack on Pakistan.
Just how did it fall into their game plan??9/11 benefited the fundies.
It set the "West" against Islamic countries, going to Iraq only fell into their game play.
Tony Blair supported George Bush because he knew Bush wasn't going to back down. Going to Afghanistan was only right and proper, but the US going after Saddam by themselves was unthinkable politically. The US would've exposed themselves to huge political pressure, I'm sure they could've done it militarily by themselves but someone had to drum up political support across the world. Something that the Bush Admin. wasn't really bothered about. If this happened it would open the US to huge political, social, military problems.
Through his faithfulness to America and the American people, Tony Blair thought it was his job to be the "middle man" and gain some military and political consensus.
IMO, Tony Blair knew that if the Brits stayed out, few countries would ally themselves with the Americans on the Iraq issue.
Whatever some of the American members here think, Britain is still highly regarded as a political force for good and a top military power through out the world.
The idea of the US going it alone without any world wide support, would undoubtedly fall in to the hands of the Islamists, what with GW's comments of "crusades" it would seem exactly that to every Muslim. The US going "off on one" in anger to attack people who had nothing to do with 9/11 was not what the British (or the world needed).
So for the safety of the US and the world, Tony Blair made himself a political martyr (sad eh?) to try and keep a world balance.
This is only how I see things, off topic probably, sorry....