9-11 theory..the Russians

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Kind of a long read if you have the time. Interesting conspiracy.

www.joevialls.co.uk...




posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I Think it's an attempt to descredit the position that France, Germany and Russia taked in the iraqi war.

Every one know that these countries had economic intersts in iraq oil, that's why they were aigainst that war.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 10:58 AM
link   
"Every one know that these countries had economic intersts in iraq oil, that's why they were aigainst that war."

Yes you are right, but that was part of the reason the US were so quick to launch the war on Iraq, they didn't want all Iraq's oil to be sold out in Euros, they wanted it for themselves, the prospect of Iraq negotiating with the US was more an unlikely, so the only option was WAR. All of the countries acted in the best interests of themselves, and none of them admitted it.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 11:03 AM
link   
In April 2001, a report by the Baker Institute for Public Policy revealed the Bush administration’s desperate urge to remove Saddam Hussein from the scene to protect their oil interests. The report was commissioned by U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney. It read,

“The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.”



You see.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 11:12 AM
link   
This world continues to revolve around agendas, conspiracy's, and theories....

And the cycle continues.....


regards
seekerof



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 11:31 AM
link   
It's not a conspiracy. It's only BS full of mistakes.

Just one that I found ( there is many others ) : " the French intelligence service [SDECE] joined the direct and indirect liaison and co-operation then existing between Russian and German intelligence. "

SDECE, for " Service de Documentation Exterieur et de Contre-Espionage ", is the former French Secret Service acronym. In 1982, S.D.E.C.E became D.G.S.E, for " Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure".

Also, who can believe that the France, Germany and Russia Intel Agencies did an anti-US coalition and are behind the 9-11 ??????????

Some peoples have really to stop smocking crack.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Some peoples have really to stop smocking crack.


Yeah your right, like i said it's just an attemp to descredit them because they were aigainst the iraq war.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salem

Yeah your right, like i said it's just an attemp to descredit them because they were aigainst the iraq war.


They weren't against that war.They don't care about Irak and her peoples.They were " just " worryed for their little bizness (Oil, weapons and so on... ) with Saddam.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I Already Know it, but the fact is that because of that they was aigainst the USA and UK on that subject.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I want to thank Peace for bringing the Baker Institute task force to my attention.

www.rice.edu...

Two other pertinent excerpts:

First:

"The report, signed by 51 experts with widely different backgrounds and perspectives on the problem, believes that President Bush has an opportunity to begin educating the public about this reality and to start building a broad base of popular support for the hard policy choices ahead."

April 2001. Didn't happen. Obviously, it couldn't. Bush could not educate anyone to tie their shoelaces. Bush scored his 'trifecta' instead on 9/11/2001, and joked about it. Bastard.

Second:

"Any viable energy policy will need to cope with the following important and often conflicting foreign policy issues:

U.S. policy in the Middle East;
U.S. policy toward the former Soviet Union and China;
The fight against international terrorism;
Environmental policy;
International trade policy, including the U.S. position on the European Union energy charter;
NAFTA;
Foreign aid and credits."

Clearly they 'misunderestimated' the world and intelligent Americans in selecting WMDs as the bureaucratically convenient lie.

Sick, sordid, corrupt behaviour.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 10:14 PM
link   
If our president was a bastard he would initiate Ethanol as the primary fuel for vehicles in the US, he would offer a $500 dollar tax break to all Americans who complied (make sure you put away your receipts).

Instead of producing food three states in the US would begin producing corn (Next years crop) and would be able to offer fuel at about 69 cents a gallon (within 365 days) World wide (It would cost about $100 American to deal with the conversion from conventional gas to Ethanol).

As far as Super unleaded don't worry it would run about a dollar (probably 89 cents). But what would happen to the world food supply, sorry but even France would probably not be able to feed its population (unless you guys can deal with a diet which does not include any protein, you can always buy vitamins/Amino acids at $20 US for 60 caplets.

But then again......



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Toltec

A very interesting analysis.

I'm not an industrial chemist or engineer. Where I am the alternative fuels are CNG and LPG.

What does a car run like on ethanol?



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Like I said MA you make a run to your regular auto parts store and buy the kit, at most it will run about $40 American. The tax incentive can make it free and in
fact, offering it for $15 American could offer the retailer a tax incentive he cannot refuse (its possible that free installation could be a part of the deal).

A car will run no differently than using the stuff generated by dinosaurs as long as you buy the kit and install it properly.



posted on Jul, 28 2003 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by Salem

Yeah your right, like i said it's just an attemp to descredit them because they were aigainst the iraq war.


They weren't against that war.They don't care about Irak and her peoples.They were " just " worryed for their little bizness (Oil, weapons and so on... ) with Saddam.



sure they care about iraq. why would the french give them military aircraft and a NUCLEAR REACTOR? same thing wit the ruskies. ivan gives saddam weapons and saddam gives ivan oil.



posted on Jul, 29 2003 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by Salem

Yeah your right, like i said it's just an attemp to descredit them because they were aigainst the iraq war.


They weren't against that war.They don't care about Irak and her peoples.They were " just " worryed for their little bizness (Oil, weapons and so on... ) with Saddam.



sure they care about iraq. why would the french give them military aircraft and a NUCLEAR REACTOR? same thing wit the ruskies. ivan gives saddam weapons and saddam gives ivan oil.



Don't be silly Ivan, all countries sell weapons to anyone who wants to buy them, unless they will be used against the seller, of course.

You ask why the French sold them a nuclear reactor, the same reason the US sold N Korea a nuclear reactor.

And weapons? well the US and the UK have sold more weapons to "rogue states" in that region in the last couple of decades than you could begin to imagine.

Britain sold Saddam incredible amounts of military equipment in the 80's.

Of course, you haven't forgotten about the Iran-Contra scandel, have you Ivan?

Sorry Ivan, but france, Russia, UK, USA, they are all as bad as each other.

here's some intersting links for you to read Ivan

www.caat.org.uk...

pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk...

www-tech.mit.edu...



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rzarekta

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by Salem

Yeah your right, like i said it's just an attemp to descredit them because they were aigainst the iraq war.


They weren't against that war.They don't care about Irak and her peoples.They were " just " worryed for their little bizness (Oil, weapons and so on... ) with Saddam.



sure they care about iraq. why would the french give them military aircraft and a NUCLEAR REACTOR? same thing wit the ruskies. ivan gives saddam weapons and saddam gives ivan oil.



Don't be silly Ivan, all countries sell weapons to anyone who wants to buy them, unless they will be used against the seller, of course.

You ask why the French sold them a nuclear reactor, the same reason the US sold N Korea a nuclear reactor.

And weapons? well the US and the UK have sold more weapons to "rogue states" in that region in the last couple of decades than you could begin to imagine.

Britain sold Saddam incredible amounts of military equipment in the 80's.

Of course, you haven't forgotten about the Iran-Contra scandel, have you Ivan?

Sorry Ivan, but france, Russia, UK, USA, they are all as bad as each other.

here's some intersting links for you to read Ivan

www.caat.org.uk...

pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk...

www-tech.mit.edu...




what about us giving weapons to the afgahns?



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Its like Ive been trying to tell people: there are no innocents or protectors there of. France, germany, Russia, all were lookin after thier own interests. Go figure.

Toltec has brought up a way to freedom, and a noble idea: ethanol. I could care less about world food shortages since they too, are lookin out for thier own interests. Conversion to the production of corn would be ideal, a fuel sources that will break the chains of the middle east, and remove us from there permanently. We can more than supply our own food requirements even minus three staes agricultural production. The US exports far more food than it imports, Wise management of agriculture is the key to breaking the chains of international bankers and thier goons. I think we should do it.

France and Europe probably wont starve too much, after all, with thier limited landpsace, they have gotten handy with the greenhouse. But thats not important in the long run, our own indepednance and self sufficency is. Selfish? perhaps, but thats the nature of the world. Europe would ruin and exploit us if they had the resources to do it, and the power, as they have done in the past. They hardly care about our wellbeing, so why is thiers any concern to us?

Ethanol for a better future



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 10:01 PM
link   
"Gasohol" works very well (it is however a petrol-ethanol mix, not just ethanol) and is widely used e.g. in Brazil. It was marketed pre-WWII in the US and elsewhere and essentially it didn't catch on because it was dearer than petrol (very cheap then).
It may become more widely used as the economic argument strengthens and it has the virtue -say some -of depending upon renewable resources (just about any plant starch).
Drivers who run on ethanol have long been familiar throughot the West.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 10:33 PM
link   
And can Estragon make his zillionth appeal to cease and desist from this canard about the US feeding the world? It's true that agricultural products (a tricky little label that can include liquor and tobacco) is one of the few US sectors with a positive trade balance (around $18 billion in 2002, and that's not really a great deal)- offset that against the subsidies from the US taxpayer and it's no very wonderful achievement.
Was everyone asleep during the 2002 Farm Bill and the discusion of the 5-year 74 billion subsidy package?
At massive cost to taxpayers, and employing huge tariffs that promote inordinate international ill-will, US agricultural does just about OK -but very often by stifling agriculture overseas, not by fair competition: ask Canadians.



posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Ask Canadians anything, and they will blame everything on the US. Hardly a good place to start.

With proper management, in reality, US food production can go well beyond what it is. Gvornment pays farmers to burn crops, driving prices higher. In reality, govornment and buerocracy aside, we can, in reality, and have, the land and resources to make it all happen. This, the need to get rid of the current admin. The current system, to boot. After that, we actually have a really good shot at things.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join