This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

User avatar
By cruzan_flame13
Posts
#529260
Well I was talking about PH's comment(that's what this conversation was about). Also now you realize that this was between myself and PH? Remember when folks used to say(still say it)"this was an A and B conversation, C your way out? It's a bit too late for that now lol. Shenanigans.... Lol it's funny when people use that word, it's a funny word.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#529261
cruzan_flame13 wrote:
Class of 20Something wrote:
cruzan_flame13 wrote: This conversation exist because of PH's comment about conspiracy theory. When I t, it was informally. I was making a statement on certainty not on risks. That's why his statement on gambling was invalid. If I was gambling about what I was stating then I'd be taking a risk with no certainty of the outcome. That's why I gave some references to prove my statement (C.I.A document, operation mockingbird). It's already been done and is usually repeated. If tgats tge case history is a whole gambling scheme and those who study it are making alot of bets on what's occurring in the present. When someone say "I bet", it doesn't only mean by taking a risk or a wager.
Dude, proof read. Finish the 4th grade. Lay off the caffeine. It's like LUO discussion boards all over again. But I don't get credit for responding to that undecipherable mess.
Well that just makes you a pseudo-intellect especially when it clearly that message was attempting to disproof my statement. I was certain and not tskingba risk on my references. As I said before, you can still feel good about yourself and pat yourself in on the back.
You must be the life of the party. It is abundantly apparent you do not have the ability to perceive humor, sarcasm or to put together a coherent argument. You make a whole lot of assumptions that are incredibly nieve and off base which makes the rest of your statements irrelevant. (Still laughing that you said I don't think outside the box. Hilarious.).
Pro Tip: People who have disagreeing positions might have actually researched them. The Truth lies somewhere between Alex Jones and Rachel Maddow.
Also, no, I don't buy any of your Loose Change Conspiracy theories.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#529262
Class of 20Something wrote: I started all off this out with a genuine suggestion indicating your inability to convey your message would undermine your opinion. Don't give me that "attempting to disproof your statement" shenanigans.
I bet there is nothing worst then attempting to disproof a statement while typing on a phone
User avatar
By cruzan_flame13
Posts
#529265
So I receive my information from Alex Jones, now that's funny. I guess you will not look into the the term conspiracy theory then right? So I make assumptions even though I give you references to prove my point? One which wasn't even Alex Jones. So from your post, I'm naive because you don't agree with me. All the things I've said have been exposed in news articles from the 90's till now from what I stated on the first post that led to this discussion. Because you don't believe it doesn't mean I'm naive. Also I wasn't trying to have an argument. Your reply was about my statements and how they were theories. I don't need to look at a documentary or listen to a person to receive this information. You can easily find it online. I guess historians, whistleblowers, and analyst are all naive and watch Alex Jones too for their information. Whatever makes you sleep at night PH. You can leas a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#529267
cruzan_flame13 wrote:So I receive my information from Alex Jones, now that's funny. I guess you will not look into the the term conspiracy theory then right? So I make assumptions even though I give you references to prove my point? One which wasn't even Alex Jones. So from your post, I'm naive because you don't agree with me. All the things I've said have been exposed in news articles from the 90's till now from what I stated on the first post that led to this discussion. Because you don't believe it doesn't mean I'm naive. Also I wasn't trying to have an argument. Your reply was about my statements and how they were theories. I don't need to look at a documentary or listen to a person to receive this information. You can easily find it online. I guess historians, whistleblowers, and analyst are all naive and watch Alex Jones too for their information. Whatever makes you sleep at night PH. You can leas a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
I'll use simple statements. I was commenting on the assumptions you make about me and how/where I gather my information.
I'll stop there because anything else seems too complex for you.
User avatar
By cruzan_flame13
Posts
#529268
Purple Haize wrote:
cruzan_flame13 wrote:So I receive my information from Alex Jones, now that's funny. I guess you will not look into the the term conspiracy theory then right? So I make assumptions even though I give you references to prove my point? One which wasn't even Alex Jones. So from your post, I'm naive because you don't agree with me. All the things I've said have been exposed in news articles from the 90's till now from what I stated on the first post that led to this discussion. Because you don't believe it doesn't mean I'm naive. Also I wasn't trying to have an argument. Your reply was about my statements and how they were theories. I don't need to look at a documentary or listen to a person to receive this information. You can easily find it online. I guess historians, whistleblowers, and analyst are all naive and watch Alex Jones too for their information. Whatever makes you sleep at night PH. You can leas a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
I'll use simple statements. I was commenting on the assumptions you make about me and how/where I gather my information.
I'll stop there because anything else seems too complex for you.
Not quite. You still haven't inform me where the term conspiracy theory came from(I gave you the document). That was the assumption. If you're going to call something out as a theory, then you should have facts to back it up. One thing for certain, this conversation should stop here because it seem like you'll never give any references/proof of what I said is incorrect.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#529269
Good Lord. Even that one statement was too difficult for you to grasp. I mean I was literally explaining what I was saying. Yet you are saying that I wasn't saying what it was I was saying. As though you are telling me I didn't say what it was I said.
But I did learn the CIA was apparently around in 1879 when Conspiracy Theory was first originated.
https://books.google.com/books?dq=%22co ... 22&f=false
By rtb72
Posts
#529276
Assad is not the issue here. Not saying he's a great guy but Syria will be worst than what it is. For centuries Syria was the country in the Middle East where Muslims and Christians actually lived amongst each other with no hostility. Of course the bureaucrats in Washington who are greedy and evil wants to take out Assad and put in a puppet government that will be worst. This is the same lie that was used with Saddam Hussein during the early 1990's where they said he was using chemical gas on his own people and also when they used the girl who told the world under tears that she saw how Hussein's soldiers took babies out of their incubators and let them die on the cold floor( turns out that girl wasn't even in Kuwait during that time and she was in fact the daughter of the Kuwati ambassador of the U.S.). Then Novembre 1990 Bush 41 continued this lie to the poor soldiers. So yes this is another lie so that U.S. can use another noble lie to get us to kill a dictator in order to put in a puppet government that is worst( same thing that occurred in Libya. The bigger problem is actually China but our controlled politicians and and media is pointing fingers to Russia just because elitist(like George Soros and the late David Rockefeller) hate Russia and actually wants to destroy it. These folks want another world war and is based off of geopolitics and the dollar. The issue is they font want Russia and other countries to stop using the dollar and instead use oil (from Syria for example) to trade for gold. This will destroy what is left of the dollar being a dominant global currency. China is a economical power and they have a great sphere of influence around the world (you can definitely see it in Africa) and even America (our trade, buying land that the U.S. government illegally stole from Americans, Hollywood to use for propaganda). Our corrupted bureaucrats have made China the powerhouse that is today. Sorry for the rambling but I just wanted to point out some things that we are not told about. Trump is bring lied to about the situation and this a crucial moment in history. I just hop he doesn't take the bait that will lead us to more catastrophe. Remember war is money and its the central bank that gain this cash flow. If this follow through, it's the bankers who'll win and the citizens on both side of the conflict that has to deal with the pain and horror.[/quote]

Just a future note for you, some people will discredit you opinion based on the sheer quantity of spelling, grammatical and syntax errors in your post. I highlighted some of the errors just to help you in the future. There is still a lot of missing punctuation but many people will view an opinion as lesser because of how it was presented. Again, I'm not trying to belittle you, but help you be taken seriously in the future.[/quote]
________________________________

I'll have to take issue with a few items here. Saddam killed thousands of boarder kurds near the end of the Iraq/Iran conflict. This was essentially a genocide in the 80's and many lived in Kurdish occupied areas inside the boarders of Iraq. Assad has been extremely aggressive against the Kurdish people. Although there was tranquility "for centuries" that does not exist anymore and with the infusion of radicalized islamist....it will not be a future realization. There may be some Muslim/Christian tranquility...but it is extremely covert and isolated. As for Desert Storm, we never attacked Iraq per se...the intent was to repulse the continued occupation of Kuwait. As a matter of fact, the ground war was only a few hours. We hit the ground in Kuwait and were never mission oriented to invade Iraq. I take personal issue with your insulation that Soldiers and Marines were simply lied to and pushed forward on some government initiated charade. I for one knew the confirmed intel from credible sources fully supported the US mission in aid to Kuwait. I also know this mission manifested after the UN was ignored by the Saddam regime. As for the second Iraq war; I will acknowledge that WMD's were not found...but to suggest there was no evidence of their previous existence or the fact they easily could have been moved based on the time frame of engagement is very naïve. As a matter of fact, some intel suggest the Syrians may have been beneficiaries to those very WMD's. Likewise, their return could have been easily achieved once the inspectors left. Inspectors who I might add, were denied access to certain areas in Iraq. I've been out of the service for some time now, and I don't know what branch you served in or what credible intel sources you have clearance for.....but the hyperbole and conspiratorial rhetoric you contribute is only supported by ideological talking heads. I will not defend our inability to nation build nor will I suggest we should engage in that arena...especially in the middle east. However, the work that was being done in Iraq and Afghanistan could have yielded more positive results....had we not let a vacuum develop. This was partly our fault, but we also had very little support from the UN and many resources never made their intended destination. But to suggest it was all based on lies and a get-rich-quick scheme is an insult to me and many other veterans. Did Assad deploy chemical warfare against his own. I don't know, and I'd assert you don't either! But I will say the historical trends and implications indicate it is highly probable. It's easy to listen to the pundits and draw conclusions based on "pieces of the story". My only suggestion would be you go to a veteran who was actually there and involved mission related movements based on vetted intel, and ask them.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#529279
I agree with about 95% of your post. I too find it insulting and disrespectful to those involved in the Gulf Wars and/or 9/11 when these conspiracy theories come out.
As for WMD in Iraq, I'm pretty sure the working theory is that most were shipped out. Also, WMD WAS found in Iraq
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles ... nd-in-iraq

As for Assad, that's tough. Syria was the catalyst for all the grief against Israel in the 80's-early 2k. He did pretty much leave Christians alone and is a downright liberal reformer compared to Hafez. I don't doubt that he would gas his own people, especially the Kurds but this makes 0 sense if true. I've been reading an alternate explanation that sounds a lot more plausible. That being Assad's forces hit a storage area of the rebels during 'routine shelling' that contained the gas. That Rebel forces would have gas isn't beyond the realm of possibility. To me, that makes more sense, but it also doesn't fit 'the narrative '
User avatar
By TH Spangler
Registration Days Posts
#529294
Purple Haize wrote:I agree with about 95% of your post. I too find it insulting and disrespectful to those involved in the Gulf Wars and/or 9/11 when these conspiracy theories come out.
As for WMD in Iraq, I'm pretty sure the working theory is that most were shipped out. Also, WMD WAS found in Iraq
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles ... nd-in-iraq

As for Assad, that's tough. Syria was the catalyst for all the grief against Israel in the 80's-early 2k. He did pretty much leave Christians alone and is a downright liberal reformer compared to Hafez. I don't doubt that he would gas his own people, especially the Kurds but this makes 0 sense if true. I've been reading an alternate explanation that sounds a lot more plausible. That being Assad's forces hit a storage area of the rebels during 'routine shelling' that contained the gas. That Rebel forces would have gas isn't beyond the realm of possibility. To me, that makes more sense, but it also doesn't fit 'the narrative '
http://wavy.com/2017/04/07/virginia-sen ... ns-attack/

If he's right our intelligence depts are still very bad?
By rtb72
Posts
#529296
So a Virginia State Senator went on a mission to broker peace with Assad and from that meeting feels he would not have initiated strikes against his people? Assad has targeted the Kurds countless times....innocence be damned. I will concede to PHs point that there may be an alternative possibility in THIS event....but Assad with Bio/Chm weapons is not acceptable. I'm not going to try to defend Trump's action. I believe he acts in both an emotional and tactical sense. The former of which can be dangerous. But I don't know I could continue to watch feedback on dead kids and innocent people being killed, like Allepo, and not respond. There was a lot at stake here, I believe. The US's credibility for one, our message as it were...to the Russians, N. Koreans, and Chinese; and to deal with a growing atrocity which will not be contained in the boarders of Syria. Was he right to order the attack? IMO, I say he was very limited and exact in this strike. The military gave due diligence to targets and went above and beyond to ensure casualties were limited and attacks were directly oriented to B/C targets and bases. All in all, I believe he was indicating that B/C on innocents would no longer be tolerated and I believe he acted in a way that aligns him with what I would want in a Commander and Chief. I'm not saying his previous or future actions will be w/o flaw, but I am saying based on my perspective, experiences and the US policy for the past few years, my comment is simply......."It's about time"
By rtb72
Posts
#529297
I would agree our intel in areas such as Syria and Iran is not as good as they are in other areas. These areas do not lend as easily to direct recon as other areas. It's harder to put folks in covert capacities on the ground there as you can imagine. This is part of the reason bringing in Syrian refugees is complicated. Vetting them is nearly impossible. We depend greatly on native resources which can be tainted or compromised. Nevertheless, we do have good intel sources and coupled with other resources, satellite, electronic interception, etc.....I think our intel does as well as can be expected. That's why I suggested earlier the WMD's could easily have been taken out prior to our engagement in early 2000's. There are numerous images, reports, and intel gleaned from native resources which establish convoys and sorties leaving Iraq with cargo prior to our attacks.
User avatar
By jbock13
Registration Days Posts
#529319
Haha. Alex Jones. Haha
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#529321
jbock13 wrote:Haha. Alex Jones. Haha
I was waiting for something on Chem Trails
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
Dondi Costin - LU President

Ive gone there a few times since moving to texas[…]

NCAA Realignment Megathread

Duke Gonzaga B12? https://larrybrownsports.com/co[…]

FlameFans Fantasy Baseball

We are on!!! Hope to see everyone tonight at 9:30[…]

Another player that most people who post on here[…]