Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The March for Democracy

759 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 27 28 29 30 31 Newer→ Last

  • recordari,

    Que? No. Of course not.

    Sorry, I misread 'capacity to oppose' as inferring they shouldn't have opposed it. When in fact you meant they didn't, but should have. Or something. I'm confusing.

    AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    [Offensive quoted comment deleted -- RB]

    [for purposes of clarity, the crack was a reference to speaking to "the Wellington branch of Mossad" in a reply to Stephen. Hardly the worst thing you've ever read, but in the circumstances, unfunny and unhelpful. - RB]

    You have well and truly earned that FU now. Kudos.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    Steve, your judgement is badly defective if you think that there is anything to be gleaned from those haters.

    And please, try not to be so defensive. It doesn't become you. Peace.

    I will never, ever be restrained in criticising people who spread this toxic shit. There can be no peace with anyone who advocates it. Take your pusillanimous peace and stick it up your arse.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    There was a lot of intelligence and rumour before the attacks. A few years back, while polishing my shoes on a bit of old newspaper, a headline caught my eye: Bin Laden 'mobilising for attack'
    This was in the 'World´section of the Chch Press on June 25, 2001. It cited a correspondent from Quetta, who said he'd met Bin Laden a few days earlier in Afghanistan, and that "a major attack on United States and Israeli interests in the next two weeks" was planned.
    The reporter was from an Arabic channel, MBC, who "had also talked with bin Laden's followers. 'All of them affirm that the next two weeks will witness a big surprise', the reporter said.
    'A severe blow is expected against US and Israeli interests worldwide'."
    Ok, 9/11 was about 10 weeks later, and maybe such rumours were semi-routine. But in hindsight, it seemed remarkable- that a smallish paper in NZ was reporting this in June 2001.
    I can't understand why the simple and obvious explanation for 9/11- it was a(nother- they'd tried before) terrorist attack on the WTC by Al Queda- seems so hard for some to accept.
    Bin Laden et al themselves claimed they were behind it.
    Are there people who are somehow (by aliens:-) hard-wired to look past every obvious explanation for a conspiracy theory?

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2118 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    A bit over 100 years ago, there was the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Fast forward to the present day, substitute Zion for Mecca, and the mentality is just the same.

    What's frequently overlooked is that of the 19 confirmed hijackers, 15 of them were Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 2 Emirati, and 1 Lebanese. Yet most of the bombs rained down on Iraq. Someone didn't take geography at school, or it could be something more...

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5446 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    it seemed remarkable- that a smallish paper in NZ was reporting this in June 2001.

    Oh. My. God.

    FAIRFAX.

    That explains everything.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    Stephen- calm down :) Not remarkable as in CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY- remarkable as in: there was a lot of chatter/rumour/intel beforehand, all pointing to Bin Laden- so much it even made it to Chch :)

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2118 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Take your pusillanimous piece and stick it up your arse.

    There, I fixed it for you.
    As for haters, have you looked in the mirror lately.
    Calm down, if you go looking for hate you will find it.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    [Offensive quoted comment deleted -- RB]

    Actually not funny. At all.

    And I'm now closing this thread before it degenerates further.

    [for purposes of clarity, the crack was a reference to speaking to "the Wellington branch of Mossad" in a reply to Stephen. Hardly the worst thing you've ever read, but in the circumstances, unfunny and unhelpful. - RB]

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 27 28 29 30 31 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.