Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by __THeMoor__ at 2005-05-29 00:30:20

powerkok said:

I was basically, just being a dink.
BUT!
yes, theres a but.
If what you say was true, and the W admin really did whatever it is youre arguing they did, then why shouldnt they have let the BinLaden family leave, since they didnt do it, and all?

no one's arguing that bin laden had nothing to do with this. The Bin Laden family and the bush family have been business parters for years through the carlyle group. that's just a plan fact. Osama is the black sheep of the fact...i really don't think the other bin laden's had anything to do with this...it would not be in their nest interest, as they are already all rich as fuck with nothing to gain and everything to lose.
What people are arguing is that our policies in the mideast and everywhere else for that matter caused this attack. for example: in the 1980's when Iran and Iraq were warring, Reagan sold weapons to Iran, then proceeded to turn around and secretly sell weapons to Iraq. he did this in order to stalemate the war to keep it going so that neither side won outright, causing who knows how many IRaqui and Iranian casualties. Osama bin Laden has been quoted as saying that this was when he turned against the united states, seeing the deception and terribleness of this act (he was buddy buddy with us until then-we supplied him and the taliban with weapons to fight russia when they invaded afganistan.)

[default homepage]

[print][

5:47:54am May 29,2024
load time 0.00686 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]