If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
One and the same/love & marriage - you're splitting hairs. They're inseparable.
Does positive discrimination even still exist?
You're really talking nonsense here. White Nationalism stands on the notion that whites are biologically superior to blacks and other races. Whether the government recognises race or not is irrelevent. For the government to cease all recognition of race, the Stormfront brigade would immediately come to the conclusion of a "Jewish conspiracy destroying white racial identity" or something along those lines.
What you have to understand is that the lines are blurred. Jews with certain views (that all jews should relocate to Israel) are obviously going to largely reach some agreement with White Nationalists.
What seems to be the suggestion here is that Zionism and its identifiable influence on international affairs, both in the present status quo of Middle Eastern relations and the manner in which those relations are regularly presented in mainstream media, is somehow a myth simply because another particularly onerous group happens to focus one aspect of its message around that influence.
Rest assured that the militancy and exceptionlism of hardline Zionism is quite substantively documented and decried by a broad cross section of public opinion.
Only the intellectually lazy, and there are a few readily identifiable as such here, will leap on some fringe excuse like Stormfront to ignore the much more scholarly examinations of the issue.
There's no such thing as "ethnic purity".
Say what?
The links tying people together are irrelevant to the concept of realpolitik. Power is all the matters, the colour, religion, gender or whatever of a person is irrelevant.
This assumes that "ethnic groups" are homogenous. They're not, they're composed of individuals. It also assumes that "ethnic purity" actually means something - it doesn't.
No, I don't think we can all just get along. But there is no reason why different "races" can't.
Yes, there is competition over resources and how they are organised. There is no reason why this is divided along "racial" lines however.
Kill each other over what?
To think that wanting a forest tribe to preserve its identity is anything to do with race is absurd. White nationalists seem to think that people have something in common merely because they are white. This is nonsense.
How is that "politically correct"? It supposes that racial differences are more than skin deep.
This makes no sense.
I don't see how they imply a conspiracy.
Its not that technically difficult to fly a plane into a building. I don't think that anyone apart from the most simpleminded fool thinks that it was organised from a cave either. You however seem to believe that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition and that eye witnesses how saw a jet liner crash into the pentagon were lying. The only sources you use to back this up is bonkers conspiracy sites with stories about UFO's on them.
What you may "think" and what is reality on the other hand are two vastly different matters, Commerical Jumbo Jets are not "easy" to fly, especially in terms of the aerial maneuvres claimed of the supposed hijacker-pilots in question.
But then the roster of holes in the official coverstory are well published for those with an ounce of rationale to consider the evidence of a serious criminal whitewash.
Fact is you simply cannot allow yourself to stop and consider the fact that only key persons within the administration and a handful of other military instutions were necessary to ensure the success of the operation and subsequent ready explanation for the media. If you can believe a handful of foreigners without the authority necessary to issue a complete standdown of our air defences ("failure" my arse) could perpetrate such an act and the powers in Washington couldn't then you are navie indeed.
Any criminal investigator's textbook will teach you the basic lessons followed by countless 911 researchers these past 4 years, namely to examine
1. who had the greatest motive - the long awaited realisation of the PNAC agenda and perpetual exhorbitant budgetary outlays to the military and intelligence communites as well as increased concentration of power in the Executive branch;
2. who had the means - the most sophisticated military planning capacity and command control technology in the world
3. who had the opportunity - this is a no brainer indeed.
As for the WTC, I once again suggest you examine the actual construction of the WTC towers and the quite paltry amount of actual fire (plenty of smoke and smoldering but nowhere near the heat required to melt steel) and the results of far more intense fires burning far longer in comparable high rise buildings.
And no I didnt say witnesses for lying, but eye witness testimony is one of the most easily mistaken sources of evidence, especially in a traumatice situation which occurs in a short space of time. I have no doubt they saw something (easily painted to match the colours of a AA plane) crash into the pentagon, but no way in hell did a 757 make a hole as small as the one documented prior to the collapse of the remainder of the wall. And further, how interesting that the object which sturck did so in the portion of the Pentagon under reconstruction and thus essentially empty. More smoke and mirrors dear boy.
But once again, why waste my breath on one who has shown his preference to believe the original tale told by an administration which has since been repeatedly exposed as liars and spin artists. Im sure they also have some choice ocean-front property to sell you in Kansas.
to be fair, the assertion that it was Al qaeda hasn't had any credible backing either.
Aside from the destruction of all those trade records and bank accounts, you mean?
well then how did the US know who to attack immediately after 9/11 if it was an umbrella group without any formal leadership, don't you think the invasion of afghanistan and Iraq was a bit rushed if indeed what you're saying is true...
Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. That was just a flimsy excuse. Afghanistan had very little to do with it either - I think the US just blindly wanted to bomb someone, anyone. Although I do think that there probably were Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, but to suggest that 9/11 was directed from there is absurd. Groups like this will operate in de-centralised autonomous cells.
I'd just finished nights after 9/11 and watched the whole thing. The media went from it's happened to it's Osama commendably quickly. One has to praise their powers of investigation. :yeees:
Oh yeah, thats well sus. But to suggest, as Clandestine does, that the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, is bizarre. There is no evidence. I mean, two big fuck off airliners laden with fuel crashed into them! No explosive charges necessary.
true but don't you think 9/11 was the trigger that made the US attack these countries...i really doubt afghanistan and iraq were on the list of US targets pre-9/11...therefore it leaves the possibility of sabotage
btw i don't believe in the conspiracy theory i just don't discount it either
Also there are plenty of reports online where engineers have said there is no way aviation fuel can get hot enough to melt the steel. Jetliners crashing into them were even taken into consideration whewn they were planned.
Did you read in the news of that fire in a skyscraper in Spain recently? The thing was on fire fir 3 days. It still stood after it went out. The only thing left was the frame.
So where is your well researched counter argument and evidence to support the laughable coverstory Blag?
Ill do you one better, here is yet again the body of research painstakingly assembled to outline the holes in the coverstory:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
No UFO's to be seen dear boy.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/051302/FBI_Admits__No_Evidence_/fbi_admits__no_evidence_.html
A couple more interesting reads and look, again no UFO's (imagine that!)
Want more or are we talking a total lack of capcity to question who the obvious winners from this ongoing fraud truly are?
Obviously the very point I have advocated all along, that of the necessity for a truly public, transparent and unconstrained judicial enquiry into all the records long seized and held behind a veil of secrecy by this admin (gee, what do THEY have to hide I wonder?) is unthinkable to you and those like you. "Conspiracy Theory" is so much easier to spout than digging in and risking confrontation with the awful extent of the betrayal behind the shiny star-spangled image propogated by the Rove spin factory.
What you've bought into is a boogeyman myth with as little concrete evidence shown to support it as the administration bothered to provide (aside from mere media repeated claims) for 911 and its perpetrators.
Fact is, media reptititon has proven effective enough at achieving "manufactured consent". Hear it enough from enough supposed "official" experts and pundits in suits and ties and it must be true. Once that is achieved all opposing scrutiny can merely be dismissed as "conspriacy theory" regardless of the logical consistencies contained in the opposing research over that of the "official" pronouncement on the matter.
Mass media has made propaganda and mass programming all too easy for our leaders, especially when they have a clear agenda waiting to be pursued.
America certainly stands to gain from the attacks in terms of oil...a precious resource...given that this is a fact, there'll always be a sense of conspiracy in the air regarding American involvement or deliberate US ignorance leading up to the attacks.
Another question you didn't point out is how it was that the massive network of vertical steel columns forming the central core of the building werent left rising up into the air, if somewhat twisted by the descent of the floors themselves, is the building just collapsed from the melting of the floor joices?
And how was it that building 7 situated behind the towers and not struck by the planes collapsed in just same manner as the twin towers?
All this and so many more questions which the coverstory (and subsequent congressional whitewash committee) just avoided altogether.
Of course, the BIG question, reminiscent of the days of the Watergate scandal (also unsursprisingly called "conspiracy theory" by equally apathetic bandwagon mentalities such as we find again in the present), is "who is following the money?".
One of the articles to which I link above addresses the matter of the heavy UA stock selloff and questions where the money went. Would that we had a more thorough and publicly transparent hunt going on.
I think Iraq was on the list before 9/11.
Both the PNAC doctrinal document "Rebuilding America's Defences" and Brzezinski's later work The Grand Chessboard emphasize the strategic requirements for invasion and control of these key locations.
If you watch the video, you can see that the top floors collapsed onto the lower floors.
There's also plenty of reports to say that it can. So?
Did a jetliner crash into it?
Lots of nonsense about Zionist conspiracies, the Bilderberg Group, neo-con trots (!) etc though.
In point of fact you cannot since it is a fact of physics that jet fuel does not burn at the temperatures required to melt or event soften construction grade steel.
Please do yourself some credit and cease from spouting whatever you wish to be so just to avoid confronting the hard facts of the matter.
Thank you for underscoring the fact that you dont have any intellectual intent to examine the substantial body of evidence contradicting your preferred bandwagon beliefs.
Outlines clearly enough the level of your rational capacities in this debate.
So we can see fairly clearly who bothers to research and who doesn't.
Thanks mate!