Ghost-d, this is a case where I apply occam's razor. There are two possibilities:
One is that things happened more or less at face value. Obama ordered a raid, bin Laden was killed, Al Qaeda's public statements confirm it.
The other is that the raid was a fake, and that bin Laden is either still alive or died years ago. The US and Pakistani governments are both part of this conspiracy, even though it is publicly making Pakistan look bad. Also, the Al Qaeda news release was faked by the US while at the same time no denial from the real Al Qaeda has been published. To make this work, the US has to completely repress any release from Al Qaeda that would deny the US cover-up. Finally, all of that has happened with no leaks, no lies uncovered by the press, and no breakdown in the execution of a very complicated plot.
Which of these two is more likely?
You mention faking an Al-Qaeda video. Yes, that's possible. But it's also possible that a death photo of bin Laden could be faked, too. What proof is enough? Like the apostle Thomas, only seeing the wounds yourself can leave no doubt. Since we can't examine the body, we have to evaluate the information we do have. In my opinion, it is infinitely more likely that the simplest explanation also happens to be the correct one. It usually is.
They dumped the body into sea immediately and their story changes all the time. They act like a student whose homework was supposed to be eaten by a dog. To me this is simple enough not to believe them.
Not to mention that I also remember satellite pictures with trucks in Iraq where they should have been hiding and transporting all the WMDs the US didn´t find and later even admitted that there wasn´t any. Another lie. How many lies does it take to see that you can´t believe them?
the story is full of so many holes its painful to listen to. if they care so much about islamic tradition to dump the body in the ocean, then why not also respect people enough to not bomb their weddings?
US intelligence had an information from sources close to al-quaeda chiefs that there was Osama Bin Laden hiding in the brides bouquet.
They dumped the body into sea immediately and their story changes all the time. They act like a student whose homework was supposed to be eaten by a dog. To me this is simple enough not to believe them.
Not to mention that I also remember satellite pictures with trucks in Iraq where they should have been hiding and transporting all the WMDs the US didn´t find and later even admitted that there wasn´t any. Another lie. How many lies does it take to see that you can´t believe them?
Your post here is why I generally don't go in for a conspiracy theory. You're crediting them both with the incredible competence to pull off some globe-spanning crime, but also saying their failure at the very easiest part gives them away.
Has the story changed? Yeah, sure. I say that's a product of the information age and 24-hour news cycle. People wanted details immediately after the raid occurred, even though the people giving the details would have to do it based on 3rd hand accounts and guesswork, as the soldiers in the raid hadn't even returned stateside to be debriefed.
I think errors in that case are totally normal. We all make mistakes, especially if we haven't had time to digest all the facts about an event.
You don't believe them, right? If they're lying, and lying poorly, it means that they've plotted out this whole caper, complete with exploding helicopter, corpses on the ground, and apparent complicity with Pakistan. Does it seem likely that they planned all that out, but forgot to get their cover story straight? To ask another way, if you personally had months to plan a crime, would you plan out an airtight alibi before you went into action or would you just wing it after the fact and keep changing details the more you talked? Me, I would rehearse my story so many times I could recite it flawlessly in my sleep. Barack Obama is smarter than me - if I realize the need to get my team's alibi straight beforehand, wouldn't he?
It seems MUCH more likely that error-prone people have made statements with incomplete info than that the criminals in the White House forgot to make sure the alibi was in place. Frankly, I'd be more suspicious if it was airtight perfect. Nothing in the real world is that clean cut, and certainly not classified special ops missions. My wife works in Public Affairs for a bus company and even she has to send out corrections to the press for little things like details about bus crashes. Not conspiracy, just errors and guesswork in an info-dense age.
The WMD issue... same thing, IMO. It was a massive conspiracy, except that the US forgot to plant evidence? That makes no sense at all. If George Bush ordered the CIA to fake a reason to invade Iraq, why not fake some actual WMDs? I mean, that would be easy! People WANTED to believe that! One spec ops team that drops off some fissile material in a location, another team with embedded reporters to 'find' it. In a desert, with the resources of the US military to pull it off? Easy. Man, that's easy. Who would ever find the truth in the Iraqi wastes? But they didn't try that, and instead look like intergalactic assholes for invading a country without justification. So good to fake the cause for war, but so incompetent as to fail to plant WMDs to back it up?
I just can't buy the dichotomy that the various US government officials are so brilliant as to execute these world-spanning conspiracies but so dumb that they overlook obvious details that expose their ploys. That's still occam's razor for me - mistakes made in a rushed press conference is simpler to me than accepting the whole conspiracy notion. Like I said, my wife sometimes reports things in press conferences that turn out to be incorrect and later have to be fixed. It just happens.
Sorry again for the long post, I'm one talkative bitch :P
Your post here is why I generally don't go in for a conspiracy theory. You're crediting them both with the incredible competence to pull off some globe-spanning crime, but also saying their failure at the very easiest part gives them away.
Has the story changed? Yeah, sure. I say that's a product of the information age and 24-hour news cycle. People wanted details immediately after the raid occurred, even though the people giving the details would have to do it based on 3rd hand accounts and guesswork, as the soldiers in the raid hadn't even returned stateside to be debriefed.
I think errors in that case are totally normal. We all make mistakes, especially if we haven't had time to digest all the facts about an event.
You don't believe them, right? If they're lying, and lying poorly, it means that they've plotted out this whole caper, complete with exploding helicopter, corpses on the ground, and apparent complicity with Pakistan. Does it seem likely that they planned all that out, but forgot to get their cover story straight? To ask another way, if you personally had months to plan a crime, would you plan out an airtight alibi before you went into action or would you just wing it after the fact and keep changing details the more you talked? Me, I would rehearse my story so many times I could recite it flawlessly in my sleep. Barack Obama is smarter than me - if I realize the need to get my team's alibi straight beforehand, wouldn't he?
It seems MUCH more likely that error-prone people have made statements with incomplete info than that the criminals in the White House forgot to make sure the alibi was in place. Frankly, I'd be more suspicious if it was airtight perfect. Nothing in the real world is that clean cut, and certainly not classified special ops missions. My wife works in Public Affairs for a bus company and even she has to send out corrections to the press for little things like details about bus crashes. Not conspiracy, just errors and guesswork in an info-dense age.
The WMD issue... same thing, IMO. It was a massive conspiracy, except that the US forgot to plant evidence? That makes no sense at all. If George Bush ordered the CIA to fake a reason to invade Iraq, why not fake some actual WMDs? I mean, that would be easy! People WANTED to believe that! One spec ops team that drops off some fissile material in a location, another team with embedded reporters to 'find' it. In a desert, with the resources of the US military to pull it off? Easy. Man, that's easy. Who would ever find the truth in the Iraqi wastes? But they didn't try that, and instead look like intergalactic assholes for invading a country without justification. So good to fake the cause for war, but so incompetent as to fail to plant WMDs to back it up?
I just can't buy the dichotomy that the various US government officials are so brilliant as to execute these world-spanning conspiracies but so dumb that they overlook obvious details that expose their ploys. That's still occam's razor for me - mistakes made in a rushed press conference is simpler to me than accepting the whole conspiracy notion. Like I said, my wife sometimes reports things in press conferences that turn out to be incorrect and later have to be fixed. It just happens.
Sorry again for the long post, I'm one talkative bitch :P
I think you don´t get my point. Sure, it is easy as hell to make some photoshop pictures of Ladins dead body - but I never said that such pictures would be a proof for ME. I was just pointing out how OTHER people (people with "faith" in their government) can believe such story without any evidence, especially when the story has so many holes (and not in details - dead wife/wife survived and armed suspect firing at the special forces/unarmed suspect ARE NOT small details. and Laden was not a bus crash - it´s someone who was supposed to kill 3000 civilians and been sought for almost 10 years, white house representatives were watching it in real-time so the story should be well covered at the beginning). So the whole thing is not about when I would believe this, but how come the people around believe that without any evidence (ie - something THEY would/could call evidence).
And another thing - Great point with faking WMD. There would be absolutely now way to prove that it was fake (unlike many other things regarding 9/11). But what drives me wild is that (and this may sound a bit odd) they don´t even have the "decency" to cover up all their lies. That is the biggest problem - although it´s evident that the government lied (many times they even admit it) people seem to forget it and still believe every word the politicians or media say.
Invading Iraq was based on lies - there´s no doubt about it. Now there are breaking news about Gaddafi shooting his own people and people want some action against him. I haven´t seen any of those huge attacks and bombarding against Lybians in the news - not that it would be a proof for me, I´m just talking about how others can agree with any action based on absolutely no evidence. From the whole story all I can say is that it´s just a bunch of rebels with guns that came out of nowhere and if such thing would happen in the US, the government would use police and army. But when Gaddafi does the same thing, he´s murderer.
And the news? "Everybody wants Gaddafi down, people are in the streets, they all want a change." Few minutes later - "Gaddafi is supplying civilians with weapons so that they could defend their country against western invaders" - if there really were people in the streets in Lybia and if it was truth that everybody would want to get rid of Gaddafi, do you think he would supply them with guns??? have you ever seen anyone to supply their enemies with guns??? Another bunch of lies! Funny thing is that rebels are calling for elections, but Gaddafi may not run! Why? if it is a fact that nobody wants him to lead Lybia, the he won´t win the elections. So why couldn´t he run? And still nothing - nobody stops it, people take everything as a fact and don´t even think about anything. Why should they anyway? There´s just another country being attacked... Could it be that they just got used to it? Well, no matter what, I just hope to see the day when all these things turn up against them. Unfortunately, I´m not some rich friend of Obama´s (not that I would want to be his friend...), so my sorry ass will be deep in the same shit with those blindfolded assholes.
In my opinion politicians are now just trying how far they can get. Right now they´re just checking if it is possible to do their shit without ANY evidence.
There are all the reasons to call them so, so why wouldn´t I.
Because *I* don't see it your way, and you sure as hell shouldn't be calling me one.
It's uncalled for, and it does fuck all for making me what to consider your perspective seriously.
I think most people are not seeing the forest for the trees. War is always. I repeat. always about control of land, territory and resources. to the victor goes the spoils. Historically governments, kings and rulers almost always have to lie to in order to get large amounts of people to join the war effort. It is also very very costly and risky, hence why nations tend not to go to war unless there is a damn good reason to.
If they actually told you the truth and said 'hey we need to secure some minerals in this region of the world, and you may end up dead' how many people do you think would go along with it? I'm sorry but thats the truth.
at least in the past with smaller tribes and nations I believe they instinctively knew that their survival and growth of their peoples depended on their armies ability to secure valuable land and resources.
this whole war on terror is just the right boogeyman they need to blame their agenda on. how can you have a war on terrorism anyways, thats like having a war on hurting peoples feelings, or eating trans fats. its preposterous.
What land, territory and resources did America gain by sending 50,000 soldiers to die in the jungles and swamps of Vietnam?
well not sure about that specific incident, but I would presume it was profitable to a small group of individuals. we dont send 50, 000 soldiers and thousand of aircraft to be 'nice'
Vietnam wasn't an 'incident', it's the largest, deadliest war that America has fought in the last 60 years. Soldiers were drafted for that war; Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing by comparison. If you believe war is "always, repeat always" about control of land, territory and resources, then I think America's biggest conflict since WWII would have to fit that point.
IMO, there are lots of reasons for war. Resources and the like are often the motivator, but there is no one simple answer. For religion, for freedom, for fear. Vietnam was fought as a proxy war against an ideology, to show the world that America opposed the spread of Communism - that's both freedom and fear, with no material gain.
If you want territory and resources, you don't invade a jungle nation populated by impoverished rice farmers. There's no payout in that.
Because *I* don't see it your way, and you sure as hell shouldn't be calling me one.
It's uncalled for, and it does fuck all for making me what to consider your perspective seriously.
Then why don´t you try to attack my perspective, rather than my judgment about people seeing it the other way? Now it just looks like you have nothing to use against my opinions so you get all touchy-feely about total banality.
Funny thing is that now that you take it personally (the thing with "blindfolded assholes" - although I didn´t mean it directly on you) you just admitted that you blindly believe your government and at the same time you realize that they´re fucking around with you (why else would you take it personally). So how else would you describe such person? You give them your money (taxes), they use it to bully other countries and then they even laugh in your face when the lies show up, yet when they try the same lies you pay them back with full trust and support. How else would you describe such person (and yourself, apparently - although I really didn´t mean to be personal. I was taking the whole thing as a discussion).
I watched the footage, and honestly, even if it was original footage and I was in place of US government, I wouldn´t use it. Even if it was real, it just screams fake all around. Old bearded man sitting on ground (where´s all the luxury they mentioned in media?) switching channels, not once looks in the camera... It could be even Santa Clause on the North pole killing some time before next christmas come.
I would watch some lectures by Zbigniew Brzezinski. he explains openly albeit in double speak and coded language what their intentions are. you just have to read between the lines. I almost always reject the cover since they hardly make sense. now they may not have gained resources from Vietnam, but I'm sure the military industrial complex benefited from it.
Sorry for the late reply, I was out all weekend.
Anyway, I do agree that some people inevitably benefit from war. I mean, at the least, defense contractors profit from it, and it creates jobs for anyone who produces material for war.
I think that's different, though, than a nation's objective for war. The US didn't get into Vietnam to gain land or resources - it was an ideological war, which in part may explain why it was lost. Nixon won election in 1972 in part because he was adamant about cutting losses and exiting Vietnam, there was just no upside at all to continuing the investment.
I wonder if there is some kind of limit as to how long a country like the U.S. or the U.K. is able to continue meddling in other countries affairs? There must be some kind of cutoff point where the war fund becomes a percentage against profits, like the sharing of resources, namely oil.
Apparently the Saudis will reach a threshold in 2012 or soon thereafter where demand will noticably reduce oil reserves. Give it 20-30 years and we will have no oil left.
It's high time governments pulled out of foreign countries and put their money into scientific research for alternative fuels. Maybe we could find some alternatives for the various products of the petrochemical industry from the approximate 2540000000 (two billion five hundred and forty million) tons of global rubbish we dump every year into landfill sites and the sea.
bit strong, considering the UK has only existed for just over 200 years
Well britan then. It's a bit pedantic to be trying to separate the two since the federation known as the UK is an example of the british meddling in other countries affairs.
And it's not like the british are the only ones. There's the chinese, cambodians, japanese, russians, mongolians, iranians, greeks, italians, french, and so on.
WIt's a bit pedantic to be trying to separate the two
not really, not if you're going to go all historical on your politics, but get your political history in a muddle. "Britain" as a nation has only got a hundred years on the UK. If you're going back 'thousands' what you're probably referring to is England, and before that all the various kingdoms that were there before it ... but if the whole 'england, britain, whatever it's all the same' bollocks is going to be used, there's probably a bunch of international politics threads that could be brought to a shuddering halt with the 'whatever, it's all the same' gambit. Might try that someday, they can get a bit tiring.
springhunt, as danr pointed out that's why the "U.K." was mentioned since I was referring to modern times. Modern countries should realise this kind of behaviour only creates short lived profits for the already rich and long term dammage in the respect of the environment and inter-country relations.
not really, not if you're going to go all historical on your politics, but get your political history in a muddle. "Britain" as a nation has only got a hundred years on the UK. If you're going back 'thousands' what you're probably referring to is England, and before that all the various kingdoms that were there before it ... but if the whole 'england, britain, whatever it's all the same' bollocks is going to be used, there's probably a bunch of international politics threads that could be brought to a shuddering halt with the 'whatever, it's all the same' gambit. Might try that someday, they can get a bit tiring.
As far as I'm concerned Britain/UK is not a nation, rather a sovereign state/collective, a bit like how a lot of North America was part of Britain/ruled by England at one time.
Replies
They dumped the body into sea immediately and their story changes all the time. They act like a student whose homework was supposed to be eaten by a dog. To me this is simple enough not to believe them.
Not to mention that I also remember satellite pictures with trucks in Iraq where they should have been hiding and transporting all the WMDs the US didn´t find and later even admitted that there wasn´t any. Another lie. How many lies does it take to see that you can´t believe them?
US intelligence had an information from sources close to al-quaeda chiefs that there was Osama Bin Laden hiding in the brides bouquet.
Your post here is why I generally don't go in for a conspiracy theory. You're crediting them both with the incredible competence to pull off some globe-spanning crime, but also saying their failure at the very easiest part gives them away.
Has the story changed? Yeah, sure. I say that's a product of the information age and 24-hour news cycle. People wanted details immediately after the raid occurred, even though the people giving the details would have to do it based on 3rd hand accounts and guesswork, as the soldiers in the raid hadn't even returned stateside to be debriefed.
I think errors in that case are totally normal. We all make mistakes, especially if we haven't had time to digest all the facts about an event.
You don't believe them, right? If they're lying, and lying poorly, it means that they've plotted out this whole caper, complete with exploding helicopter, corpses on the ground, and apparent complicity with Pakistan. Does it seem likely that they planned all that out, but forgot to get their cover story straight? To ask another way, if you personally had months to plan a crime, would you plan out an airtight alibi before you went into action or would you just wing it after the fact and keep changing details the more you talked? Me, I would rehearse my story so many times I could recite it flawlessly in my sleep. Barack Obama is smarter than me - if I realize the need to get my team's alibi straight beforehand, wouldn't he?
It seems MUCH more likely that error-prone people have made statements with incomplete info than that the criminals in the White House forgot to make sure the alibi was in place. Frankly, I'd be more suspicious if it was airtight perfect. Nothing in the real world is that clean cut, and certainly not classified special ops missions. My wife works in Public Affairs for a bus company and even she has to send out corrections to the press for little things like details about bus crashes. Not conspiracy, just errors and guesswork in an info-dense age.
The WMD issue... same thing, IMO. It was a massive conspiracy, except that the US forgot to plant evidence? That makes no sense at all. If George Bush ordered the CIA to fake a reason to invade Iraq, why not fake some actual WMDs? I mean, that would be easy! People WANTED to believe that! One spec ops team that drops off some fissile material in a location, another team with embedded reporters to 'find' it. In a desert, with the resources of the US military to pull it off? Easy. Man, that's easy. Who would ever find the truth in the Iraqi wastes? But they didn't try that, and instead look like intergalactic assholes for invading a country without justification. So good to fake the cause for war, but so incompetent as to fail to plant WMDs to back it up?
I just can't buy the dichotomy that the various US government officials are so brilliant as to execute these world-spanning conspiracies but so dumb that they overlook obvious details that expose their ploys. That's still occam's razor for me - mistakes made in a rushed press conference is simpler to me than accepting the whole conspiracy notion. Like I said, my wife sometimes reports things in press conferences that turn out to be incorrect and later have to be fixed. It just happens.
Sorry again for the long post, I'm one talkative bitch :P
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/videos-show-bin-laden-938339.html
Make a conspiracy out of that, I dare you.
I think you don´t get my point. Sure, it is easy as hell to make some photoshop pictures of Ladins dead body - but I never said that such pictures would be a proof for ME. I was just pointing out how OTHER people (people with "faith" in their government) can believe such story without any evidence, especially when the story has so many holes (and not in details - dead wife/wife survived and armed suspect firing at the special forces/unarmed suspect ARE NOT small details. and Laden was not a bus crash - it´s someone who was supposed to kill 3000 civilians and been sought for almost 10 years, white house representatives were watching it in real-time so the story should be well covered at the beginning). So the whole thing is not about when I would believe this, but how come the people around believe that without any evidence (ie - something THEY would/could call evidence).
And another thing - Great point with faking WMD. There would be absolutely now way to prove that it was fake (unlike many other things regarding 9/11). But what drives me wild is that (and this may sound a bit odd) they don´t even have the "decency" to cover up all their lies. That is the biggest problem - although it´s evident that the government lied (many times they even admit it) people seem to forget it and still believe every word the politicians or media say.
Invading Iraq was based on lies - there´s no doubt about it. Now there are breaking news about Gaddafi shooting his own people and people want some action against him. I haven´t seen any of those huge attacks and bombarding against Lybians in the news - not that it would be a proof for me, I´m just talking about how others can agree with any action based on absolutely no evidence. From the whole story all I can say is that it´s just a bunch of rebels with guns that came out of nowhere and if such thing would happen in the US, the government would use police and army. But when Gaddafi does the same thing, he´s murderer.
And the news? "Everybody wants Gaddafi down, people are in the streets, they all want a change." Few minutes later - "Gaddafi is supplying civilians with weapons so that they could defend their country against western invaders" - if there really were people in the streets in Lybia and if it was truth that everybody would want to get rid of Gaddafi, do you think he would supply them with guns??? have you ever seen anyone to supply their enemies with guns??? Another bunch of lies! Funny thing is that rebels are calling for elections, but Gaddafi may not run! Why? if it is a fact that nobody wants him to lead Lybia, the he won´t win the elections. So why couldn´t he run? And still nothing - nobody stops it, people take everything as a fact and don´t even think about anything. Why should they anyway? There´s just another country being attacked... Could it be that they just got used to it? Well, no matter what, I just hope to see the day when all these things turn up against them. Unfortunately, I´m not some rich friend of Obama´s (not that I would want to be his friend...), so my sorry ass will be deep in the same shit with those blindfolded assholes.
In my opinion politicians are now just trying how far they can get. Right now they´re just checking if it is possible to do their shit without ANY evidence.
It's the first time anyone's ever said that sentence!
There are all the reasons to call them so, so why wouldn´t I.
Because *I* don't see it your way, and you sure as hell shouldn't be calling me one.
It's uncalled for, and it does fuck all for making me what to consider your perspective seriously.
What land, territory and resources did America gain by sending 50,000 soldiers to die in the jungles and swamps of Vietnam?
Well America lost that war didnt they?
Vietnam wasn't an 'incident', it's the largest, deadliest war that America has fought in the last 60 years. Soldiers were drafted for that war; Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing by comparison. If you believe war is "always, repeat always" about control of land, territory and resources, then I think America's biggest conflict since WWII would have to fit that point.
IMO, there are lots of reasons for war. Resources and the like are often the motivator, but there is no one simple answer. For religion, for freedom, for fear. Vietnam was fought as a proxy war against an ideology, to show the world that America opposed the spread of Communism - that's both freedom and fear, with no material gain.
If you want territory and resources, you don't invade a jungle nation populated by impoverished rice farmers. There's no payout in that.
Then why don´t you try to attack my perspective, rather than my judgment about people seeing it the other way? Now it just looks like you have nothing to use against my opinions so you get all touchy-feely about total banality.
Funny thing is that now that you take it personally (the thing with "blindfolded assholes" - although I didn´t mean it directly on you) you just admitted that you blindly believe your government and at the same time you realize that they´re fucking around with you (why else would you take it personally). So how else would you describe such person? You give them your money (taxes), they use it to bully other countries and then they even laugh in your face when the lies show up, yet when they try the same lies you pay them back with full trust and support. How else would you describe such person (and yourself, apparently - although I really didn´t mean to be personal. I was taking the whole thing as a discussion).
Amen
I watched the footage, and honestly, even if it was original footage and I was in place of US government, I wouldn´t use it. Even if it was real, it just screams fake all around. Old bearded man sitting on ground (where´s all the luxury they mentioned in media?) switching channels, not once looks in the camera... It could be even Santa Clause on the North pole killing some time before next christmas come.
Sorry for the late reply, I was out all weekend.
Anyway, I do agree that some people inevitably benefit from war. I mean, at the least, defense contractors profit from it, and it creates jobs for anyone who produces material for war.
I think that's different, though, than a nation's objective for war. The US didn't get into Vietnam to gain land or resources - it was an ideological war, which in part may explain why it was lost. Nixon won election in 1972 in part because he was adamant about cutting losses and exiting Vietnam, there was just no upside at all to continuing the investment.
Apparently the Saudis will reach a threshold in 2012 or soon thereafter where demand will noticably reduce oil reserves. Give it 20-30 years and we will have no oil left.
It's high time governments pulled out of foreign countries and put their money into scientific research for alternative fuels. Maybe we could find some alternatives for the various products of the petrochemical industry from the approximate 2540000000 (two billion five hundred and forty million) tons of global rubbish we dump every year into landfill sites and the sea.
do you know how long the UK has been meddling in other countries affairs? It's hundreds, nearly thousands, of years.
bit strong, considering the UK has only existed for just over 200 years
If Warhammer 40k has taught me anything it's that the British will take that shit into space.
Well britan then. It's a bit pedantic to be trying to separate the two since the federation known as the UK is an example of the british meddling in other countries affairs.
And it's not like the british are the only ones. There's the chinese, cambodians, japanese, russians, mongolians, iranians, greeks, italians, french, and so on.
not really, not if you're going to go all historical on your politics, but get your political history in a muddle. "Britain" as a nation has only got a hundred years on the UK. If you're going back 'thousands' what you're probably referring to is England, and before that all the various kingdoms that were there before it ... but if the whole 'england, britain, whatever it's all the same' bollocks is going to be used, there's probably a bunch of international politics threads that could be brought to a shuddering halt with the 'whatever, it's all the same' gambit. Might try that someday, they can get a bit tiring.
So what's this article about then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britons_(historical)
Britons. Are these the ancient people you're accusing of meddling with other nations? Being a bit of a pain to some Romans perhaps
References to 'britain' within it refer to an island. Hush now
Why do you think it would be otherwise? were the ancient britons pacifists? Do you think it's not 'meddling' if the other side wins?
I'm sorry, my mother was actually crippled by a war chariot with great big spikes on the wheel hubs, and I find this whole conversation distasteful
^
Wins.
Is there an "Oops, I killed your dad" Hallmark card?
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8249112/porn-stash-found-in-osama-compound-us
Thats just...just beyond heinous, no one steals a mans porn stash.
You are very bad America.