Lisbon Treaty

by **thrashduck** on Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:10 am

Your member is politics. True story.

by **Headtrip Higgins** on Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:25 pm

my member is gold!!!!!

by **crossofiron** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:16 am

"Okay okay. Dont call 9/11 an inside job. Apart from it being bloody offensive beyond belief, its also a bit silly."

I have my doubts about 9/11 too. On the day it happened I was in the office surrounded by building engineers, the consensus of opinion among us engineers was that the buildings weren't going anywhere...for three buildings to neatly collapse onto themselves, one of them not even hit by a plane is pretty incredible to me. Whatever happened that day, i'm pretty sure that we havent heard the full story.

by **satanic_goat_christ** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:30 am

I think it's all a bit too convenient. Bush sneaks into power, opinion ratings drop like mad, then suddenly that happens and he gets the excuse to massively increase the government's powers with the excuse of 'patriotism', distract everyone from all the neoliberal crap he's forcing on them and invade a few countries while he's at it. It's way too convenient for me, all seems a bit Reichstag fire. And if you think there's no way he'd kill a few thousand US citizens just for power, remember Cheney shot his own friend in the back.

by **jonny_boy34** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:44 pm

Indeed, I don't think it's silly and offensive to think that it's all a bit shifty. Unfortunately people do sometimes do very bad things. Just watching that Zeitgeist movie alone is enough to plant doubts and questions in the mind. You should watch it Dan, it's pretty bloody good.

by **Creeping Dan** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:47 pm

Ive heard of it, and ill give it a go. But everybody saw what happened on live TV and all those people died. And a lot of people try to find conspiracies in everything, and this was a perfect chance for a major one.

There was a show on TV that proved a lot of the theories wrong, it was on channel 4 i think. Ill try to remember the name of it. But ill never believe it was an inside job until its proven, and not by a nutter on youtube.

by **satanic_goat_christ** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:00 pm

Yeah, obviously most of the stuff is from the people who think aliens touch them while they sleep. But no smoke without fire, and seeing the CIA have a long history of arming and manipulating bunches of nutters like the Taliban, the whole thing was well within their means.

by **James** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:29 pm

In the absence of any genuine evidence, I think all we can do is ask ourselves what's more likely: pissed off Jihadists hijacking some planes and flying them into some obvious targets, or the US goverment perfectly executing the whole thing and framing the Muslims, smashing up half the Pentagon and dealing themselves a huge economic blow in the process, without anyone involved breaking the silence? Saying it's "a bit too convenient" doesn't really cut it.

by **satanic_goat_christ** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:31 pm

I'd disagree with the huge economic blow bit, after 9/11 the whole 'homeland security' market went through the roof, and invading Iraq then giving out massive contracts to rebuild it made some people very rich as well. I'm not saying the US blew the buildings up themselves, but they could easily have stuck the idea in the pissed off jihadists' heads and made sure things went smoothly for them. But like I said, it's all a bit Reichstag-fire: it doesn't really matter who did it, just that it happened and they took advantage of it.

by **crossofiron** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:39 pm

Creeping Dan wrote:Ive heard of it, and ill give it a go. But everybody saw what happened on live TV and all those people died. And a lot of people try to find conspiracies in everything, and this was a perfect chance for a major one.

There was a show on TV that proved a lot of the theories wrong, it was on channel 4 i think. Ill try to remember the name of it. But ill never believe it was an inside job until its proven, and not by a nutter on youtube.

If you google a bit further there are some well qualified practising structural engineers that aren't convinced either. Those
towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707, earthquakes, gales etc. this wasnt a medievil cathederal we are talking about here. The pentagon attack is even more mysterious.

Sometimes by reading up on the past you can get an insight into the future, ask yourself wether we would be in iraq and afghanistan if not for the 9/11 terrorism. The nazis used the burning of the reichstag parliament as a pretext for the need to persecute the jews. This was what hermann goering said at nurenberg:

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

by **blacktears** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:33 pm

thrashduck wrote:
satanic_goat_christ wrote: If I touched a Daily Mail it would be to wipe my arse with, and even then I'd rather use sandpaper than touch that heap of rightwing crap. I don't like Blair because he's a neoliberal Catholic war criminal, not because a bunch of fascist hacks told me he's a bad man.

Fair play, but what have his "war crimes" got to do with ruining Britain?! Yeah, he cocked things up, especially in Iraq and with America, but it really gets to me when people say he "ruined Britain" and stuff... what exactly did he ruin as opposed to say, John Major?

Worth a read, a conversation from two different view points..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 774485.ece

by **blacktears** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:44 pm

satanic_goat_christ wrote:I'm not denying the Tories did (and will do) worse, but he didn't help. Instead of trying to undo all the damage from the 80s.

Do any of you remember the 60s and 70s, when Britain was a basketcase economy, on the verge of bankruptcy, rubbish piled high in the streets, slums, Powercuts, 3 day week in force, race riots & intolerance, etc, etc.. Believe me, the 80s were splendid in comparison. Mind you, the increase in the economy and conditions was mainly bankrolled by North Sea Oil & Gas. Without that we would have been up shitcreek without a paddle by now.

However bad things are with the economy now, it's a blip in the ocean to back then. I'm an old git, so I lived through those years.

by **blacktears** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:02 pm

crossofiron wrote:
If you google a bit further there are some well qualified practising structural engineers that aren't convinced either. Those
towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707, earthquakes, gales etc. this wasnt a medievil cathederal we are talking about here. The pentagon attack is even more mysterious.

[color=#800000]Yes, but there are also dynamics engineers that can prove that bumble bees are structurally incapable of flight. There is also plenty of structural engineers that ARE convinced. Are we just going to believe the ones that aren't, to conveniently back a theory?[/color]

Sometimes by reading up on the past you can get an insight into the future, ask yourself wether we would be in iraq and afghanistan if not for the 9/11 terrorism. The nazis used the burning of the reichstag parliament as a pretext for the need to persecute the jews.

[color=#400000]The Reichstag burning was actually used to discredit the NS party's main political threat - the Communist Party. The Reichstag fire was officially attributed to a nearly blind Dutch communist radical named Marinus van der Lubbe who was arrested in the Reichstag building as it burned. At the time it was uncertain whether Germany would veer in a Communist or NS direction. Have a read of Michael Moorcock's "The Vengeance of Rome" for a stimulating insight into this period in the 30s.

You also can't look at this 9/11 piece of terrorism in isolation, as a prime cause for the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan. It was the main catalyst, yes, but there had been ongoing & systematic terrorism attacks on American targets well before 9/11. [/color]"

by **blacktears** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:08 pm

satanic_goat_christ wrote:I think it's all a bit too convenient. Bush sneaks into power, opinion ratings drop like mad, then suddenly that happens and he gets the excuse to massively increase the government's powers with the excuse of 'patriotism', distract everyone from all the neoliberal crap he's forcing on them and invade a few countries while he's at it. It's way too convenient for me, all seems a bit Reichstag fire. And if you think there's no way he'd kill a few thousand US citizens just for power, remember Cheney shot his own friend in the back.

So, on that reasoning, was the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands an agreed ploy by Mrs Thatcher to give her a much needed boost in the opinion polls at the time?

by **satanic_goat_christ** on Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:37 am

Well, that must have been part of the motivation for sending a fully equipped task force half way round the world over two tiny, almost uninhabitable islands. Considering how close the Argentinian junta was to collapse anyway, using the UN to get economic sanctions put through on them could have tipped them over the edge and ended it without violence.

The 80s might have been better than the 70s, but by the sound of it that's like saying Stalinism in East Germany was an improvement on the Nazis. Thatcher might have fixed the economy, but the overall change to the political landscape means now no one even suggests seriously deviating from 'private is better' and the rest of that crap. Seeing I didn't live through the 80s, I'm not really qualified to bitch about what happened in them, but what's happening now is a direct result of free market capitalism, which goes right back to Thatcherism.

Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re:

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty

Re: Lisbon Treaty