On TechRepublic: 10 cool USB flash drive tricks
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 7 of 32:
Next »
« Previous
Step by step...
I will assume, then, that you are serious. Let us consider step-by-step...

Bin Laden worked for the CIA at least until 1998...

Maybe, maybe not. I do not deny this, but I am unfamiliar with the notion. Evidence would be appreciated.

...and there is no evidence that proves that he has broken ties with them.

That is a logical fallacy. Lack of evidence for X does not prove Y. All it proves is a lack of evidence for X. Note that it doesn't even disprove X-- it simply fails to prove X.

Bin Laden has actually been the CIA's point man for a lot of their dirty work. This explains why a terrorist with hundreds of millions of dollars and a worldwide network of thousands of terrorists all willing to die if need be is not attacking us.

This is a non sequitur. Yes, if bin Laden were a CIA operative ("point man"), the CIA might leave him alone. But this is not the only plausible explanation for why he isn't attacking us. Another is simply that there are lots and lots of really pissed-off US Marines with huge honkin' guns after him and he's more concerned with not assuming room temperature than blowing stuff up. Besides, who's to say that he won't attack again? Your CIA-bin Laden connection is far from the only explanation for his apparent inactivity.

If there is this "war on terror"..where is the terror? The obvious answer is that there never was a "war on terror".

Well, there's the WTC getting blown up... there's the Spanish train attack... the USS Cole... Daniel Pearl... the recent beheading... continued kidnappings... etc...

"That there never was a 'war on terror'" is far from the "obvious answer". It is convenient answer, but is obvious only when considerable evidence is ignored, and other ideas are fallaciously assumed.

9/11 was a staged attack carried out by members of the United States federal government.

Proof? Please keep in mind that "Persons or groups X, Y and Z would certainly gain a great deal from thus-and-such an event." In so saying you establish only motive, and a very poorly demonstrated motive at that.

The purpose was to scare people into thinking they were being attacked so they would be too willing to hand over their money and children to help Bush and the other neocon Nazis subjugate the middle east and its wealth of resources.

Since the ideas that this is based on are so fallacious, this point clearly lacks standing.

The Boeing crash at the Pentagon has already been proven by independent forensic scientists to have never happened.

Repeated "find the Boeing" demands are not proof. I assume that this study can been submitted to peer review and their confirmation has been posted?

The ones that stand to gain the most from this "war on terror" are (surprise!) the current republicans in power.

Again, proof? Let us take for granted, for the sake of argument, that this is true. So what? The fact that a person hasa great deal to gain doesn't mean they're guilty. It only means that they have a great deal to gain.

As for the Carlysle Group, here's what I found:

Our mission is to be the premier global private equity firm, leveraging the insight of Carlyle's team of investment professionals to generate extraordinary returns across a range of investment choices, while maintaining our good name and the good name of our investors.

That's pretty fearsome! Woah!!! An equity firm WITH INVESTMENT PROFESSIONALS!!! Oh, hell... time to move into the bomb shelter, Martha.

Anyway... perhaps you could post a link to actual proof (not speculation, not "isn't it interesting", not "guess who has a lot to gain"-- real proof) of this group's ill doings? Thanks.
Posted by: Martin Marvinski   Posted on: 06/16/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Federal government is a *potential* abuser.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/16/04
Dark, unlit alleys are havens for terrorists, too  Xunil_Sierutuf | 06/16/04
Yep, so are mirrors.  mdielmann | 06/16/04
War on terror a complete sham!  Jeff Spicoli | 06/16/04
Comedy gold!!!  Martin Marvinski | 06/16/04
You think it;s false merely because it sounds so extreme?  Jeff Spicoli | 06/16/04
Step by step...  Martin Marvinski | 06/16/04
Cats and Bird cages........  middle of nowhere | 06/16/04
Send me one also.....  middle of nowhere | 06/16/04
Get your facts straight  jurasek@... | 06/16/04
Hey, no logic here, please!  Martin Marvinski | 06/16/04
I couldn't find the Boeing..  Xunil_Sierutuf | 06/16/04
That's because there wasn't one  Jeff Spicoli | 06/16/04
Don't know much about the oil industry do you  voska | 06/16/04
Oil Industry.......  middle of nowhere | 06/16/04
What??  Jeff Spicoli | 06/16/04
I believe it was 1988 not 1998  voska | 06/16/04
Want the facts?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/16/04
You want photos?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/16/04
Wow  Jeff Spicoli | 06/16/04
Again, evidence?  Martin Marvinski | 06/16/04
WHAT?!  Jeff Spicoli | 06/17/04
Re:  Martin Marvinski | 06/17/04
CMON REALLY  kashman | 10/01/04
Another excuse to maintain the status quo  AbsolutelyNot | 06/16/04
So long..  Jeff Spicoli | 06/16/04
Prove it!!!  Martin Marvinski | 06/16/04
whats next?  +-Chris-+ | 06/16/04
nope they want wireless web based camera's  V Sanders | 06/18/04
feds will look for any reason to track us  V Sanders | 06/16/04
dow drug dealers they could probably monitor  V Sanders | 06/16/04
the bits would laugh  bthomasmo@... | 06/16/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here