Terrorism????...Blame America!!!!

There are so many loose ends I would draw the conclusion the authorities new at a high level and as it coincided with the wider agenda turned a blind eye to it.

I think this as well.

Churchill knew about Coventry getting bombed by the nazis, but let it go ahead, because on balance he knew there was more at stake, if nazis knew the enigma had been decoded.

The gov thought the same about 9/11, on balance it's worth the price, for invading and making the whole middle east democratic. Obviously it's not working out as planned, but they didn't know this at the time.
 
Sending 500 more soldiers to Afghanistan.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me - sending 500 more soldiers to Afghanistan.

So what is the strategy behind this decision?

What difference will 500 soldiers make to issues on the ground and the air?

On the news they are discussing why Mr Brown has announced he is sending 500 extra troops just before Obama makes his announcement tomorrow? To show he is leading and not following - ie playing the poodle... :rolleyes:

I reckon we'd all be better off if he announced 500 lucky draw winners were coming home for xmas.

Mr Brown says he has set targets for the Afghans to meet for continued British support. Well if they manage Afghanistan anything like with the targets he manages UK schools and NHS I think we can all safely conclude it is a conspiracy to mess up the country - making it much worse than what it is now. :LOL:

We pay the bankers bonuses for ****ing up the economy, UK pays bonuses to the Taliban for behaving well and doing as they are told. If the government can't get the bankers to play straight what freaking chance do they think they have with the Taliban. Just like the bankers, Taliban will take the money and still mess up big time.

Bunch of ******s the lot of em... :mad:
 
Re: Sending 500 more soldiers to Afghanistan.

On the news they are discussing why Mr Brown has announced he is sending 500 extra troops just before Obama makes his announcement tomorrow? To show he is leading and not following - ie playing the poodle... :rolleyes:

:

What will Gordie get as his kick back present from the US ?? when he gets booted outa office next year .

Just another crooked politician ? Selling Britain down the Swannee ?
 
I concur it is highly likely that the terrorists went ahead and picked out the twin towers in a brain storm. After all they did try and blow up the World Trade Towers few years back. I doubt the US government gave them instructions to do so.

Something like Pearl Harbour then.
 
hoorah political reform :clap::clap:

Q. Looking back over the last 50 years of the UK's parliament what would you say have been their greatest achievements ?

A. ummmmmmm
well er can't think of anything off hand but the trillions of pounds of public money must have achieved something surely ?

Not a lot I would say.

We pay for 600+ thieving bast*rds plus perks plus expenses year in year out. They are screwing us financially and each other literally ( hello John and Edwina ? ). Out to lavish dinners nearly every night. Call girls and scruffy characters in dirty macs with brown envelopes full of cash for favours !! Oh yes what a life.

The Elected Reprehensibles are only the very small front end of the corrupt system that feeds off our efforts; add in the un-civil servants, and their crazy dreamed up schemes and you begin to see the real problem.

"Terrorism" is just the currently most fashionable "bogey man" that will "come and get you" if you don't all give us all your money to help keep you safe!

If you take a step back from the spin, and compare, for example, the number of road deaths, or gun deaths in America and compare that with "Terrorist" action deaths you soon begin to realise that it is just spin.

And while on gun crime etc (which are, apparently, all drug related) what exactly is the point of the criminalisation of certain substances. Remove all restricitions, make them freely available, and the financial bottom will drop out of the crime attached to them - just compare with alcohol prohibition in the states in the 20th century. So ask the question; who is pulling the srings? the politicians? or the Crime "lords"?
 
Last edited:
So ask the question; who is pulling the srings? the politicians? or the Crime "lords"?

The trouble with legalising drugs is that you would get the dealers hovering outside school gates etc. Maybe for the over 65s. That would solve the pension problem.

Going back a lot of years it was a close fight as to who had control. Armed rebellions came and went. Some successful and a new line of monarchs took over.
The point being the losers got the chop ! Later brigands/criminals etc.mainly got severely punished too. So crime was minimal. These days the crooks go back inside ( 70%+ re-offend ) meet back up with their old buddies, learn the latest in crooked schemes and are out on the streets again in next to no time, having cost the taxpayers a fortune in free room and board.
Politicians, while meaning well have lost control imho. Pamper the honest and hard working, but come down hard on offenders especially repeat offenders.
 
Why? There would no longer any money in it!

They would be just another commodity like sweets but lethal.

A large part of the population would be useless - tripping out on cheap drugs imho

Think of the traffic chaos, cars, trains and planes going all over the place !!

The country would be a complete shambles in next to no time
 
They would be just another commodity like sweets but lethal.

A large part of the population would be useless - tripping out on cheap drugs imho

Think of the traffic chaos, cars, trains and planes going all over the place !!

The country would be a complete shambles in next to no time

...and worse thing would be that Politicians would appear to start making some sense...!
 
They would be just another commodity like sweets but lethal.

A large part of the population would be useless - tripping out on cheap drugs imho

Think of the traffic chaos, cars, trains and planes going all over the place !!

The country would be a complete shambles in next to no time

I like tongue in cheek replies!
 
wow! It has been a year since i logged onto T2w, and surprised to see this thread going really strong - he he he

talking of afghanistan and terrorism, if India were to send 100,000 soldiers to afghanistan, Pakistan would then start ******ing and frightned and they would stop harbouring terrorist

But Indians are gutless - they hate america more then pakistan
 
Indians are playing an extremely smart Political game....and it has been accepted globally that Indians have pushed Pakistan on a defensive, forced the World opinion against Pakistan, achieved an admiration by showing restrainst against any form of vulgar response to Mumbai carnage, and have not indulged in sabre rattling...!
 
Last edited:
Perhaps someone can enlighten me ?

Is there a law against preaching hatred and violence in Pakistan ?

Are the clerics generally in favour of peace and prosperity or violence ?

Do they still make public opinion ?
 
Perhaps someone can enlighten me ?

Is there a law against preaching hatred and violence in Pakistan ?

Are the clerics generally in favour of peace and prosperity or violence ?

Do they still make public opinion ?

Are there any laws in that bandit country?
 
Re: Terrorism? Don't blame Americans, blame American financiers


Give this a minute or two to get to the actual interview ... enlightening to say the least.

Worth looking through the video files on the right side of the web-page ... tres interessant, n'est ce pas?

I mean Paulson was a former Goldman Sachs employee. was he not?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/167855-how-paulson-gave-goldman-the-lehman-heads-up

A couple of questions:

1a) How many politicians/public servants in the US Congress were former employees of Goldman Sachs?
1b) I should also ask how many former politicians are current GS employees, directors, associates?
2) To what extent does Goldman Sachs influence the American political will? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print
3) How much does Goldman Sachs contribute directly to American congressmen and women's re-election campaigns?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000085
4) How much does Goldman Sachs contribute covertly to American politicians (including Senators, lobbyists, house speakers, house secretaries, campaign fund-raising, picking up expense tabs yada yada)http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/13/goldman/
http://tinyurl.com/y92qfnm
5) Is there a bigger corporate influence on US Politics than GS? http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3395
http://tinyurl.com/ydvdsrh
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/newworldorder/nworder07.html
6) What part did Halliburton play in the decision by the USA to go outside of UN guidelines and attack Iraq unilaterally? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
7) As Vice President of the USA and also former CEO of Halliburton, what role did Cheney have in influencing the decision to invade that oil-rich nation?
8) As an instrument in the destruction of Iraq's political system, and as a co-defendant in responsibility for civilian "collateral damage", how much did Cheney have to gain through the invasion of Iraq? http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=8228
9) What role does Halliburton now play in the reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure, given that it was vicariously Halliburton's bombs that caused that destruction initially? http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/oilinfra.html
10) Has Dick Cheney finally learned gun safety 101? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11312757/
11) Now waiting for somebody to link Goldman Sachs and Dick Cheney ... http://tinyurl.com/ylfdtzy

Would you trust this man, daddy?
 

Attachments

  • Richard_Cheney_2005.jpg
    Richard_Cheney_2005.jpg
    939.4 KB · Views: 176
Re: Terrorism? Don't blame Americans, blame American financiers

Add these nobs to your list too. These people are US staunch allies... Beggars belief.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8368242.stm

Even Iran isn't this bad. What next :eek:
They won't be staunch US allies forever ... the oil is running out, and they will soon realise the USA has been sucking up to them for the terrestrial black syrup!

But that story at your link is so sad - not only are women oppressed, but they promote their own oppression. I think they are going to be long-held as free labour and slaves to their men. Who knows what middle eastern women may have achieved had they been allowed an education, and the freedom to develop their intellectual side?

As things stand they are one peg above possessions, and no pegs above slaves.
At least that's how I see it.

Get this apologetic beat-up:

"We don't introduce ourselves as beautiful women who put on layers of make-up. Our audience is focusing on what we present to them, our ideas and our discourse."

Ms Barqi believes some people work in the media to become famous. But that is not why she became a presenter.

"We don't need fame," she explains.

Look, the real reasons behind this are these:

1) It is an admission of lack of character and integrity in the Middle Eastern male. It is an admission that they can not look at a female and retain respect, or control their cremaster muscles.

This has nothing to do with beauty, pre-occupation with appearance, or "focus on work instead of beauty"! It has to do with integrity, or lack of it in the male. This is a way to "fix" that problem.

If the male can not see the beautiful thing, then he cannot lust after it. That deals with his responsibility for his lack of self-control, doesn't it?

2) It is a form of enslavement and control of women. By accident of birth, half of a population will be female. "Bad luck, Jill. You were born with breasts. Now, for the rest of your life you will need to cover your entire body, except for your eyes. Sorry, but your male counterparts will be wanting to have sex with you, and we can't ask them to exercise virtue, personal integrity, character, responsibility and self-control. So we are asking you to do the next best thing - cover it all."

3) The whole concept is a misinterpretation of the prophet's writings, and is against the pure teaching of the Koran. It is based on F - E - A - R. But as I am not a scholar of Islam or the Koran, though I have oft read parts of it and remain interested, I must rely on the divided opinions of the scholars, whose brief it is to expound these things.

As these scholars are evenly divided over the partial or full covering of the female countenance and appendages, then it means that Satan has gotten into half of the scholars perhaps - I mean God is not divided against Himself, is he? So the author of Fear, Satan, the Father of Lies, has cunningly influenced this poor section of earth's people:

Abdullah bin Abbas reports that the Prophet was riding a camel with Al-Fadhl, Abdullah's brother, behind him.

A beautiful woman came to ask the Prophet about the Hajj of her father.

Al Fadhl began to stare at her; her beauty impressed him a lot.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) having noticed this while Al Fadhl was busy looking, put his hand behind and turned his face away from her hither and thither as she went along with them.

Al Abbas said to the Prophet, "you are twisting the neck of your nephew!"

The Prophet replied, "I noticed that both the boy and the girl were young; and I feared that Satan may intervene".

Note the word: "feared".

As a western Christian, I recall my mother never attending church without her hat and lacy tulle veil. She always wore gloves. By the late 1950's, that had largely passed into quaint religious history. Original Methodists!

The imposition of one form of religion or another, on another human being is the most damning sin that can be committed. Far from stirring feelings of adoration and love for our spiritual heavenly father, it has the opposite effect - building resentment and anger at the bondage of it.

Those who claim to be set free are in the strongest bondage of all.

Freedom from religion, is the first step to freedom through spirituality.

I am certain that God welcomes true humility and gratitude, but turns His back on atonement offerings (bribes) and ritual (rote bondage).

Just an opinion ... and intended for thinking readers. I won't know the truth of my views until I die.

Maybe I am wrong ... but I am free to be wrong.
 
Perhaps someone can enlighten me ?

Is there a law against preaching hatred and violence in Pakistan ?
QUOTE]

NO law at all..............
since this country is a hub of terror, surely this is not expected from Pakistan
 
Top