Author Topic: New Yorker story about Bush and Iran  (Read 6792 times)

Sad Jari

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« on: 2006-04-08 11:06:39 »
Here.

It's a long piece of text, but worth a read.

...I won't even bother writing what I think about it. :roll:

I'll say this much, though; AFP is distributing a shortened version worldwide, and you can be sure that things like forcing a regime change and using tactical nukes are going to gain US lots of new fans. If you thought that the anti-US sentiment in Europe was strong after the Iraqi-disaster, try this. You'll see how much stronger it can be.

spyrojyros_tail

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #1 on: 2006-04-08 18:41:13 »
Ooooh the war!!! Quite frankly I cannot wait for america's downfall. If you think what im saying is akin to terrorism you need to educate yourself a little first. There are two things that you should look for in google,

The reason why the US went to war in the first place - 9/11

Download:
Loose Change - Second edition (it is free to download and share it with everyone)

America tells us that they were searching for WMD's in Iraq, and that they removed an evil dictator, watch this and make up your mind who is the evil dictator

Download:
White Phosphorus - The fallujah massacare (an italian documentary on the use of illegal chemical weapons in Iraq - this is very very graphic)

I hate the situation at the minute, and i cannot wait until the american public realise what their government is doing to them and to the rest of the world, however at the minute they still seem to think that it is un-patriotic to even question the president motives.

Other good films include:

Outfoxed (A documentary on the one-sidedness of fox news reporting and the link between the bush administration and fox)

The revolution will not be televised - Hugo Chavez inside the Coup
(A documentary on the american military coup of the legally elected president of Venezuela, also shows the power of the media and shows you that you cannot believe everything you see)

The Corporation (An extreamly good documentary on the power of corporations, corporations are possibly the ones pushing the war in Iraq. Did you know that Coca Cola created Fanta to sell to Nazi Germany!? And that IBM supplied the Nazi's with punch machines to help with the holocaust?? Interested? Watch this!)

Anyway I just had to say this, I would feel bad if I didnt say anything at all. And im sorry if im breaking any forum rules, but this stuff needs to be on every billboard in every country. We need to know this stuff.

US Troops OUT of Shannon!

Sukaeto

  • Freak
  • *
  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • Sukaeto's web server
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #2 on: 2006-04-09 04:57:02 »
I know I'm not the only American on this board . . .

For all the rest of you, PLEASE, I URGE YOU, tell ALL your friends about this.  Talk to as many people in your state as you can.  We must ALL write to our congressmen and let them know to use their votes wisely when this comes before congress.

We MUST let them know that we, the people of the United States, are NOT going to stand for this.

Understand that if Bush uses nukes on Iran, there will be nuclear retaliation against us.  We will ALL DIE.  So if you care ANYTHING about your life, you will tell everyone you know.  Explain to them that THEY will perish.  Create outrage.  We must stop at NOTHING to prevent this!

Sad Jari

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #3 on: 2006-04-09 21:28:37 »
I sure didn't think that I would be arguing this side...

Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
Download:
Loose Change - Second edition (it is free to download and share it with everyone)

America tells us that they were searching for WMD's in Iraq, and that they removed an evil dictator, watch this and make up your mind who is the evil dictator

Well, I tried watching it. I really did. I did have a negative mindset from the start though, since I've read one too many websites about the conspiracy.

And frankly... as much as I distrust BushCo and wouldn't put something like a fake terrorist attack past them at all... those sites and this documentary suffer from a serious lack of objectivity and credibility.

This is just as bad propaganda as the other side is cooking up.

There's not even an attempt to investigate the matter objectively; this dude picks and chooses his "facts" to suit his agenda. Like using that airliner crash in Greece (or wherever it was) to prove that there should be bigger pieces of the plane left (this would be where I got disgusted enough that I figured that I have better things to do than waste my time with this crap). Yes, sometimes there are. And sometimes there aren't. I could show you a crash of Airbus 3something on  test flight; very gentle crash, the "intelligent" fly-by-wire and the pilot just disagreed on landing and the plane overshoot the runway at very slow speed, gears down. It crashed few hundred yards after the runway, plowing lots of trees out of its way while doing it (but at a very slow speed) and blew up. There is practically no debris larger than average sized human there. So yes, planes can disintegrate pretty badly. They are planes after all, not tanks.

BTW, I think that he surprisingly "forgot" to mention that the Greek plane had pretty much run out of fuel by the time it crashed, having been airborne for several hours.

Notice how he was apparently making an issue out of FEMA-literature featuring WTC-towers in its cover? I didn't check it, but unless I'm wrong, all of that literature was released after the first WTC-bombing.

Besides, it is rather obvious target.

Sometimes I get this urge to write a long piece to debunk most of this conspiracy crap... but then I remember that it wouldn't matter at all. Most of the people believing this stuff have probably never even heard of Occam's Razor, and the ones that have, use it only when it fits their agenda.

They are willing to cook up these incredible claims of remote controlled aircraft and the like, when there's a lot simpler way: just get some extremist freak to fly the darn thing for you. No need for multiple fake planes, no need to convert airliners and install systems that are most certainly not meant for controlling such things (the Global Hawk thing... do they even realize how much it would have to be modified to control B757?) or any other far out crap.

9/11 has become the UFO-phenomenon of this decade, and nothing can stop it now. :z

That being said, the document (or at least the 20 minutes I watched) is pretty cool demonstration of what you can do with a shoestring budget these days. I just wish that sane people would realize that too.

But the thing that makes it really sad; these wild theories actually detract from the credibility of other, more realistic claims, such as that BushCo used the 9/11 as an excuse and it was almost like gift from God to them. It's hard to get people to take even things like that seriously, when there are these kooks spinning their own, far out theories. :(

Just like Fred Phelps can sabotage the credibility of the anti-gay movement. :P Not that I would mind. :lol:

Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
Download:
White Phosphorus - The fallujah massacare (an italian documentary on the use of illegal chemical weapons in Iraq - this is very very graphic)

*sigh*

It's not a chemical weapon anymore than napalm is. It's an incendiary ammunition. Things like that are used in war.

Are incendiary weapons nice? No. But they are not banned, either. Were they used specifically against civilians? Not likely.

The real question is the sanity of attacking an urban center with lot of civilians there altogether. There are going to be civilian casualties, no matter what.

I have to point out that I'm strictly against the US invasion of Iraq, possible invasion of Iran, US foreign policy in general and BushCo. Like anyone who has been here for some time would know. :P But I think that some of the more outlandish things makes everyone who opposes BushCo to look like loons.

spyrojyros_tail

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #4 on: 2006-04-10 14:04:11 »
Cheers man, i heard a few things about loose change not having its facts right, but i thought i would put it up there anyway. The real fact out of the documentary is that the american government is keeping this extreamly quiet. I would like you to look at the entire thing and see if you can point out more inconsistancies, i would agree that we need to pick out the truth from the bias in these things. But there is some good evidence, like the FBI removing CCTV footage of the "airplane" that hit the pentagon, and the fact that all the scrap metal from the twin towers was shipped overseas... you just dont do that.

Anyway, the only reason that the white phosphorus came out was beacase the americans shot their own forces with it (typical...). I wanted to put this up because it has not been shown on any of the western media, all the british and irish news channels know about this, but refuse to show it. People probably know about the use of chemical wepons and are against it, but if they see the effects of it they would be enraged and would be more likley to take action against the war.

I agree that this is propaganda for the left side, and no documentary is unbaised, but we are up against a huge amount of propaganda supporting the war and the majority of news channels are owned by rupert, and that goes for the newspapers aswell. We are not getting a balanced view of what is actually going on and i think we need to tip the scale somewhat.

But anyway thanks for pointing out the holes!  :lol:

mirex

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
    • http://mirex.mypage.sk
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #5 on: 2006-04-11 12:10:09 »
Ah too much to read, but here is a link to the conspiracy theory movie which I think is not mentioned. http://www.matrix-2001.cz/v2/files/video/bush.asf

Sad Jari

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #6 on: 2006-04-11 23:02:46 »
Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
I would like you to look at the entire thing and see if you can point out more inconsistancies, i would agree that we need to pick out the truth from the bias in these things.

Indeed. I might do that. Depends on whether I feel up to it. :)

Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
But there is some good evidence, like the FBI removing CCTV footage of the "airplane" that hit the pentagon,

This one? Or are there other tapes?

If I would have to say anything based on that, I would say that it indeed is an airplane. Look at the first frame; you'll see something that looks like a vertical stabilizer (tail, that is) sticking out on top of that booth-thingy.

As far as I know, none of the US ground to ground, sea to ground or air to ground missiles have a big tail like that. All of them seem to have rather small stabilizers, some have small, stubby wings, but I don't think that they are supposed to bank at such angles that the wing would become vertical.

So, based on that, I would say that it is an aircraft.

Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
and the fact that all the scrap metal from the twin towers was shipped overseas... you just dont do that.

Hmmm... I was under the impression that most of it ended up in New Jersey. I agree that they seem to be very strict about the transporting, using tracking systems to keep an eye on the trucks. There is at least one sensible reason for the tracking though; they didn't want to deal with millions of eBay auctions selling pieces of the towers. Or rather; that the material would become some kind of a morbid memorabilia.

As for scrapping most of it... well, 350,000 tons of steel is an assload. It's a big, huge pile and most likely the investigators wouldn't have checked all of it anyway. It doesn't say on the 911Research-website whether the 150 pieces were hand picked or random pieces. If they were hand picked, I don't see a huge problem with it.

Sure, throughout investigation would be a good thing, but we have to remember that with 350,000 tons of steel there are purely logistical issues. Like where to keep it (it would have to be safeguarded against the weather for example, and it would begin to rust before the investigators were anywhere near checking out all of it) - it would block to entire site from rebuilding, probably for years if you kept it there (since it takes lot time to check a huge pile like that).


PS. 9-11 Research is the best website about 9-11 that I've found. They at least point out their references, so you can check whether or not they are just making stuff up.

Of course even with 9-11 Research it is important to keep your wits with you, just like with any other source.

spyrojyros_tail

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #7 on: 2006-04-12 14:33:50 »
Thanks for the link, i find this whole thing really interesting but the amount of information on it is crazy and it is hard to sift through the real fact and the ones that are opinionated.

There are other tapes that show the "plane" hitting the pentagon, and although these tapes were taken away, the loose change video shows the angle of the CCTV's of a nearby hotel, road traffic camera and that of an filling station (not the actual tapes, just what they could have seen), which would have shown what hit the pentagon, along with other inconsistancies of the actual impact.

However the tape that they released, you have to agree, shows nothing. Yeah it looks like a stabiliser, but if this is true it would mean that the whole lenght of the plane is contained behind the little booth thingy which logically doesnt make sense (you would at least see the tip of the plane), anyway its the quality is so so bad its hard to make anything out of it. I cant say that it is a missile, but in the same breath i cant say its a plane either and no one can. If they wanted to help us out they would release the other tapes. Simple, but they wont.

As for the steel, i think that the biggest single terrorist attack in american history would deserve a full investigation, and at least to transport all the steel to another place for an investigation (even just to find out why the towers fell so easily after being over designed to resist such an attack) would still be feasible, but it never happened. The steel had to pass high quality control standards, which it did, and an investigation should have been done on all the steel, not just hand picked pieces... there is no point in doing something half-assed.

Anyway, whatever you think of the loose change video, dont discard it entirely, it does show some good scientific proof and i believe is worth the watch. If you want to read some interesting things on the british prime minister go to

www.blairwatch.org

Its pretty interesting, be sure to read the al-jazera memo if ya go there.

EDIT: Oh yeah, about the ebay thing, ebay stopped people from selling the band aid tickets (they were given out for free, and people were making big money out of it). Ebay, i would imagine, would stop people from selling parts of the twin towers if the public outrage was large enough. They immediatley buckled with the band aid ticket fiasco.

Sad Jari

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #8 on: 2006-04-12 17:12:06 »
Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
There are other tapes that show the "plane" hitting the pentagon, and although these tapes were taken away, the loose change video shows the angle of the CCTV's of a nearby hotel, road traffic camera and that of an filling station (not the actual tapes, just what they could have seen), which would have shown what hit the pentagon, along with other inconsistancies of the actual impact.

Ah, yes. They are mentioned on the 9-11 Research too, I just didn't pay any particular attention this time (as it's only few weeks since I was reading the darned thing).

Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
However the tape that they released, you have to agree, shows nothing. Yeah it looks like a stabiliser, but if this is true it would mean that the whole lenght of the plane is contained behind the little booth thingy which logically doesnt make sense (you would at least see the tip of the plane), anyway its the quality is so so bad its hard to make anything out of it. I cant say that it is a missile, but in the same breath i cant say its a plane either and no one can. If they wanted to help us out they would release the other tapes. Simple, but they wont.

Certainly agreed on the quality. It's very, very bad. There might be an army of Yogi Bears dancing in there, and you couldn't see it.

You are right about the tip, most likely that would be the only thing visible.

I did some investigating as to how much of B757 should be visible from that angle. Note that this is not meant to be some kind of definitive answer about what you should see, but rather a rough estimate of how much of the plane might be visible.

1. I borrowed an aerial photo of Pentagon from Google Maps. Most annoyingly they are rebuilding it and it doesn't look like it used to four and half years ago.

2. Then I borrowed an aerial photo showing the assumed path of the B757, from Cooperative Research's Complete 9/11 Timeline. Another quite good site, btw.

3. Then I overlaid the latter on top of the former, and figured out where the camera is. Drew couple of lines, one for the approaching plane and one from the camera, over the booth-thingy towards the plane.

Like so (click for larger version):



...and calculated the angle. It's not accurate, but it gives some idea. So, instead of looking at side view of B757, we are looking at it roughly from a 45 degree angle (or 135, depending on how you think of it). Thus it looks shorter than it would from a side view. ...and fits better behind that booth.

Notice how the two pictures don't match exactly; the other is taken from a slightly different perspective, I believe. I matched the part of Pentagon that the plane struck.

4. Off to find a picture of B757 in the said angle. Here it is. Well, more or less, there's no way of knowing the exact angle and the camera is bit too high, but it'll have to do.

5. Took the CCTV frame and overlaid the 757 on top of it, using the tail to scale it to correct size. I fudged a bit and placed the 757 bit higher than would seem appropriate on first glance. Two reasons; the tail seemed to fit better width-wise if it was higher and the CCTV picture is so bad, plus out of focus at that distance (it's focused at the booths) that the real tail might actually extend bit higher than appears from that picture.







I believe that the perspective is bit screwed up (since the plane photo was taken from much higher than the CCTV camera is).

There's also the issue of the CCTV camera being equipped with a rather wide angle lens; you can see how the booth on the right and Pentagon's facade are actually bent in that picture. That too would affect how the plane looks like... but I was going for a rough estimate here. :)

So, based on that there might be a small bit of the nose sticking out there, but considering that the tail seems rather dark in the CCTV frame (you are looking at the shadow side, after all) and the quality is so horrible... I wouldn't be surprised if a tiny bit (smaller than in my calculations though, I believe) actually is visible in that frame. Just mangled by the "great" quality of it.

If the 757 was lower in that picture (so that the height of the tail would match the CCTV frame) the nose should be more visible, over the grass. ...however, I tried it and the perspective looks very wrong. I don't believe that it could have been that low, otherwise it should have hit the lawn by the looks of it.

There's (at least) one more option: I didn't scale it down to small enough. If the 757 was smaller, the tail could fit the height (and you could discount the width seen in the CCTV frame as being out of focus blur) and it would most likely hide the plane entirely behind the booth.

Anyway, no matter what the reality is, I believe that the visible part of that plane (other than the tail) is quite small.

Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
Anyway, whatever you think of the loose change video, dont discard it entirely, it does show some good scientific proof and i believe is worth the watch.

Oh, I'm not discarding it completely. For example I think that the Operation Northwoods is quite real (well, the plans were) and shows something about the lengths US administration is willing to go. That's one of the reasons why the "objectivity" of Loose Change annoys me so much; it throws away what credibility the more serious parts might have had by being so biased.

Just a quick note about the steel; many of the sites tell you that steel melts in temperature X, which can't be reached by burning jet fuel (or anything other in the towers, for that matter). All well and good, except that steel loses a lot of its structural strength at temperatures far below that. It's not some digital on/off thing - you don't have to melt it to goo to make it weaker.

I believe that most often quoted figures were that when heated to half of the melting point, it has lost 80% of its strength (down to one fifth, if you want to say it that way). Now, consider the fact that the safety factor used in calculations for WTC was six and that the towers lost some structural integrity when the planes took few columns with them... the collapse doesn't seem so outlandish after that.

spyrojyros_tail

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #9 on: 2006-04-13 11:44:10 »
lol  :lol: , its around this time that people start telling up to shut the hell up. But anyway!!

Unfortunatly the pictures that you supplied are not coming up, but what your saying does make a lot a sense, and I would believe what your saying to be true, however if we step back and imagine that we never seen any video footage at all what are we left with? The damage to the pentagon.

If we just use common sense and look at the damage to the building it is totally inconsistant with a jet plane crash, the one thing that would indicate that it wasnt a jet crash was that a)there were no bodies and b)hardly any wreckage. People put this down to the reinforced walls and the planes vaporising again, but if we forget all that we think we know and just take a guess at what we think hit the pentagon the first thing that doesnt come to mind is a plane.

Another thing that doesnt make any sense is this



A secondary hole that was made by the "plane" inside the pentagon, I cant see any plane debris, and why does it look like there was an explosion there? (im talking about the black soot above the hole). And again reports of the day told about a secondary explosion. People may say this was made by the nose of the plane, but they are made of lightweight material an would have been crushed on initial impact. It all looks too damn strange and I cannot accept that it was a plane.

Lets say we agree on the steel thing for a minute, that it was the steels fault, and that it wasnt properly fireproofed and blah blah blah. It still could never ever fall the way it did. If it were heated to half melting point (i dont know how long it has to be heated for to lose 80% strength, but they were not burning for very long at all) The top would have collapsed right? But what about the rest of the building? The top would have collapsed on the remaining structure and the top would have possibly fallen off in some random direction, leaving the tower headless, it would have not collapsed.

They were over designed to the point were they were capable of standing in the event of such an attack. A very very good point loose change makes is the formula of "free fall". Basically, there was no resistance during the fall, not one steel beam, window pane or slab of concreate stood in the way of the tower falling down, and no person in their right mind could possibly stand beside the "fact" that a plane that flew into the towers felled them so perfectly and easily.

To cause a tower to fall like that takes ages and ages of planning, it is not one freak occurance, it happened three times!!! First with the twin towers, then with wtc7. I dunno if i can argue this point anymore, if you just look at the videos available you will see, its a demolition. Use you common sense thats all i can say.

Oh and you can be damn sure that the iraq's, afganis, muslims and arabs had sweet f*** all to do with it.

Sad Jari

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #10 on: 2006-04-13 15:36:30 »
Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
Unfortunatly the pictures that you supplied are not coming up...

Yeah, I think that the telco's fiber optic cable got severed sometime this morning. There were no less than three of their repair crews inspecting something and it took several hours for the service to return. Anyway, they should be working now.

Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
If we just use common sense and look at the damage to the building it is totally inconsistant with a jet plane crash, the one thing that would indicate that it wasnt a jet crash was that a)there were no bodies and b)hardly any wreckage. People put this down to the reinforced walls and the planes vaporising again, but if we forget all that we think we know and just take a guess at what we think hit the pentagon the first thing that doesnt come to mind is a plane.

How do you know that that is inconsistent with a jetliner crash? There haven't been that many cases of jetliners hitting buildings (at a reasonably high speed).

In fact, one of the few documented cases is the rather famous F4 crash test. It should give some indication of the forces involved when a plane traveling at a high speed hits a solid object. Certainly the Pentagon walls are not as solid as block of concrete and B757 is larger (although that doesn't mean that it would be stronger), but are you sure that there should be bodies or big pieces of an aircraft?

The entire site is a worth checking out. Again, it's a good idea to be critical of what you read. :)

Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
Another thing that doesnt make any sense is this



A secondary hole that was made by the "plane" inside the pentagon, I cant see any plane debris, and why does it look like there was an explosion there? (im talking about the black soot above the hole).

The lack of plane debris could have multiple explanations; the F4 crash test hints that there might not be much left in the first place, unless I'm wrong, burning kerosene can melt aluminium (although barely) and it looks like some of the debris has already been cleaned up when that photo was taken. The first one here shows bit more debris.

That soot looks like it's from a fire, not from an explosion. Explosions don't usually produce very much soot, example here (it's a HEAT-projectile that has hit and penetrated what looks like the side skirt of M1A2 Abrams). As you can see, there's very little soot in there.

In fact all of the soot in the Pentagon picture seems to be above the hole. Smoke from a fire has a habit going upwards.

Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
And again reports of the day told about a secondary explosion. People may say this was made by the nose of the plane, but they are made of lightweight material an would have been crushed on initial impact. It all looks too damn strange and I cannot accept that it was a plane.

It doesn't have to be the nose - which almost certainly was crushed on the initial impact. Remember that the entire plane, except wings, is coming right after the nose and it's coming fast. While the aluminium is indeed pretty weak, there's 155 feet of it (plus everything else that's inside a jetliner) after the nose and it has lots of kinetic energy behind it.

The diameter of the hole seems to be pretty good match to 757's body width, btw.

Quote from: spyrojyros_tail
The top would have collapsed right? But what about the rest of the building? The top would have collapsed on the remaining structure and the top would have possibly fallen off in some random direction, leaving the tower headless, it would have not collapsed.

Uhhh... do you want to calculate how much kinetic energy 10 to 15 floors (or even worse, about 30 floors, like in the case of WTC2) of WTC tower has, after it has accelerated for 10 to 30 meters (the damaged floors)?

Because those tops are heavy. I can't see any way the remaining tower could have survived that falling on top of it. Especially because most of weight would probably hit the floors themselves, instead of the core. And each new floor they hit adds to the falling mass, so while it might slow it down a little bit, it gets new energy by getting heavier.

As for the collapse times, this page is worth a read.

spyrojyros_tail

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #11 on: 2006-04-13 18:26:30 »
man i gotta take a small break from this, because if i dont i might just fail my final exams reading up on this rather than studying. There is a whole lot of evidence out there that contradicts each other, i say demolition, you say kinetic energy, i say no plane, you say plane! lol  :lol:

The one thing we can agree on is that the goverment is being way way too quiet about this and not investigating the attacks fully. Its not the first time a government attacked itself to earn the right to attack another country (especially when iraq was going to change over from trading oil in euros instead of dollars). And im sure that loads of people would rather believe the lie than realise that  could have been their own governments doing.

Anyway!!! Im gonna take a break (about 5 weeks), but ill get back to ya on this.... were not done debating this yet  :wink:


EDIT: Actually make that six weeks, i want to go on a week long drinkin binge first...

Caddberry

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1991
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://animenfo.com/
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #12 on: 2006-04-22 06:17:01 »
Wow.. Intense discussion.. I was going to download this, and had actually started the download when I read this thread deeper.. I don't think I'll d/l it now.

A friend of mine saw the original Loose Change.. I think I'll pass on this one.. I'm not really big on conspiracy theory.. I know the Bush Administration is very crooked.. It's so crooked it disgusts me..

And the fact that they are about to even THINK about solving something with nuclear weapons..

God Bush is nuts.. Seriously.. He's lied, everything about the current administration is corrupt.. (Nearly everything) I mean.. It's disgusting.. The oil issue and how Bush is closely tied with the oil companies.. Hell, the oil companies basically wrote his energy bill!

It's SICK.. Clinton got a blow job and he was about to get impeached.. Bush lies about starting a WAR, and people are still praising him.. Though more are now FINALLY starting to see the truth..

Someone needs to get him outta office.. We need to impeach him and his whole crooked cabinet.. He has been a horrible president.. And the world hates us.

George W. Bush should be in encyclopedias as the man that totally fucked up America.

Sad Jari

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #13 on: 2006-04-22 09:16:52 »
Can't say that I'm surprised. :roll:

I know that they are difficult words to understand, but could you please specify which one you are having difficulties with; "Get" or "lost"?

I think that I can dig up your original promise to refresh your memory, if you want. Since you seem to have problems keeping it, maybe you have just forgotten.

dziugo

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1474
  • Karma: 3
    • View Profile
    • A new copy of FF7 thanks to Salk. Pack (zip/rar/etc) your saved game before sending it to me.
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #14 on: 2006-04-22 10:48:09 »
As I don't see any connection with your previous "discussion" with Caddberry... Why can't he state his own opinion? Because he is a moderator and mods need to stay neutral?

dziugo

Sad Jari

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #15 on: 2006-04-22 11:24:11 »
Because he promised that he would stay the hell away from my threads, if I did the same thing for him.

It's a truce of sorts, if you will.


EDIT: There has been lot more than one "discussion", for that matter.

dziugo

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1474
  • Karma: 3
    • View Profile
    • A new copy of FF7 thanks to Salk. Pack (zip/rar/etc) your saved game before sending it to me.
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #16 on: 2006-04-22 13:05:06 »
And it means that my memory isn't good enough :P

dziugo

Sad Jari

  • Guest
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #17 on: 2006-04-22 13:30:50 »
Well, that, or it might be just because it's been so long time ago. I believe that the first "discussion" happened at least two and half years ago. So, unless you lurked here back then, you couldn't have known.

...if you were referring to the "discussions", of course. :P The agreement is more recent vintage.

Nope, I don't forget stuff like that.

Caddberry

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1991
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://animenfo.com/
New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #18 on: 2006-04-30 23:18:11 »
Quote from: Sad Jari
Can't say that I'm surprised. :roll:

I know that they are difficult words to understand, but could you please specify which one you are having difficulties with; "Get" or "lost"?

I think that I can dig up your original promise to refresh your memory, if you want. Since you seem to have problems keeping it, maybe you have just forgotten.


Actually you did forget.. And to me that's shocking.. Mr. Forum know it all forgot the promise..

The promise that was made was that we wouldn't address each other.

That was the original promise.. Which Jari you broke first.. After that it really didnt matter anymore..

I think the way you broke the whole not addressing each other thing was when you called Nori and I bad moderators.. You tried to pull this whole "I'm not addressing you" Kind of thing that was quire laughable..

Either way .. after that.. the whole promise thing was basically off.. I don't think or didnt think that this was the first time I'd posted in one of your threads either after that..

My conversation in this thread wasn't even addressing you at all, and it was totally civil.. Not only that.. In another thread you decided to compare me to a loser that flexes his moderator power because he gets off on it or something..

So Jari.. You are the one that's being un-civil.. You also seem to have a selective memory..

dziugo .. You'd really have to know all the back story drama of this forum to understand Jari's aggressiveness towards me and select other people on this forum, and while it makes for a humorous read.. it's actually pretty sad.. ~_^

Sad Jari

  • Guest
Re: New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #19 on: 2006-05-10 10:02:16 »
Quote from: Sad Jari
Because he promised that he would stay the hell away from my threads, if I did the same thing for him.

Quote from: Sad Jari
Can't say that I'm surprised. :roll:

I know that they are difficult words to understand, but could you please specify which one you are having difficulties with; "Get" or "lost"?

I think that I can dig up your original promise to refresh your memory, if you want. Since you seem to have problems keeping it, maybe you have just forgotten.

Actually you did forget.. And to me that's shocking.. Mr. Forum know it all forgot the promise..

The promise that was made was that we wouldn't address each other.

Not that it matters now. Plus I'm really drunk. And couldn't care less.

But I checked, just to be sure. His exact words were:

Quote from: Caddberry
From now on Jari I'll leave you alone.. Have a nice life.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

If someone really wants, I can upload the entire topic. This is the topic I really don't want to see again, so don't bother me without a really good reason.

spyrojyros_tail

  • Guest
Re: New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #20 on: 2006-05-10 15:27:59 »
Quote

Sad Jari wrote:


Because he promised that he would stay the hell away from my threads, if I did the same thing for him.

It's a truce of sorts, if you will.

.
.
.

I think that I can dig up your original promise to refresh your memory, if you want. Since you seem to have problems keeping it, maybe you have just forgotten.

Quote


Caddberry wrote:
Actually you did forget.. And to me that's shocking.. Mr. Forum know it all forgot the promise..

The promise that was made was that we wouldn't address each other.

That was the original promise.. Which Jari you broke first.. After that it really didnt matter anymore..




Ok, now I havent been on forums for that long, this forum is really the only one I frequent, but for fern sakes guys... your having a fight over a forum? I really cant get over the childishness of this. I know that caddberry has left now, but for crying out loud staying away from topics because someone else is writing on it?! Common sense should kick in somewhere.

Anyway, Jari ill be back to this topic again in a week or two.

Sad Jari

  • Guest
Re: New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #21 on: 2006-05-10 15:32:32 »
Who are you to judge?

Do you know what happened? No?

spyrojyros_tail

  • Guest
Re: New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #22 on: 2006-05-10 15:37:45 »
I dont know, and im not on any side, except the side of common sense - fighting over a forum is stupid.

Get into a fight with him if your angry, have a good punch up and have a pint after. Dont ignore him on a forum, to me that sounds stupid.

Sad Jari

  • Guest
Re: New Yorker story about Bush and Iran
« Reply #23 on: 2006-05-10 15:41:41 »
Forget about it.

I'll ask that they lock this topic. Only worth it has to me now is the quote I dug up, and there's no way I'm going to get into discussion about me and Caddberry with people who think they know what's best.