Search results

Odd how a bloke who claims he's not a bigot is happy to quote a site absolutely teaming with them when it suits him.

Fair point. I'll apologise to mine when he wakes up in the morning.

It's like debating with a 6year old. "Son, please can you pass Daddy your plate" "Can I do drawing?" "After you've passed your plate. Please." "Can I stay up for another 10 minutes?" "After I have your plate. Can you pass it please?" "Can I wear the red pyjamas?" Etc etc etc

Another direct challenge answered with a different and irrelevant question. If you want me I'll be kicking myself for jumping back in to this thread.

None of which suggests the US was itself responsible for 9/11. Unless you can provide a timeline - and unless you and The Truth can answer the litany of unanswered questions from this thread - ALL you have is a theory. A theory full of holes.

Both an apt description of your post and somewhere to put your tinfoil when your kitchen draws are full up.

I've been waiting four days and I'm after you. Can someone please bring me some food and a good book?

See this is your problem. What I wrote was a fact (far more factual than the series of links from one website you trumpeted). It was "And this is the Bush family. Who haven't been imprisoned yet." If I'd wanted to say I think the Bush's should be locked up I would have said "I think the Bush's...

Nope. Where did I say that?

This is Rudolph Hess, appointed Hitler's deputy in 1933. Not a coward he actually faced trial and was imprisoned for life for war crimes. And this is the Bush family. Who haven't been imprisoned yet. This answers both points....

Invading Poland? Gassing Jews? Invading the Czech Republic? Bombing Coventry? Invading France? Gassing Mental Patients? Not legal under international law matey and not what the Germans voted for. Hell, even suicide isn't legal. You're mad.

I believe it's a good idea to have a military presence somewhere that trains terrorists yes. And that that's the only reason for it in an unstable, tribal country who's only real asset is lapis lazuli. And to answer your question the difference is that real terrorism is illegal and undemocratic...

From the rebuttal link I posted I think an awful lot of people believe the US started the conflicts in Iraq because they could. I think an awful lot of people believe that they went in to Afghanistan because they had to be seen to be responding to the terror camps there. Neither of these...

Your second paragraph is contradicted by the next two.

All of "The Truth's" links debunked in six seconds. It's like Google ping pong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23839675 That took two minutes on Google by the way. I'm with Nibs. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Laters.

I presume that you mean they turned a blind eye to some appalling behaviour by some of their presenters in the past? But then so did The News of the World who spent 30 years doing secret druggie / peado / corruption / dodgy vicar / affair stories. They would have made a fortune out of exposing...

and Excellent points. These TV channels and websites don't fund themselves and people are notoriously terrible witnesses. I expect if you made 500 people at last night's game describe both goals in minute details the scorer, manner and minute would be roughly the same and everything else would...

*jacks up in front of Escape to the Country*

That's a link to the mainstream media who you say are not to be trusted. In fact owned by lizards or aliens or a giant mega corp that controls us all. So it can't be true. Can it? The Riegle report was in 1994 and pertained to the first Gulf War. The one that can't possibly relate to 9/11...