Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Bernice: Yes, the article is suppositional in the same way that the objection is suppositional. The objection runs thus:
Suppose 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy. How, then, could so many people be kept quiet? Or, why has no one come forward?
The article then asks (again supposing for the sake of argument that 9/11 was a U.S. conspiracy), is this objection a reasonable one?
Yet, although the question itself is suppositional, nevertheless the article does provide relevant evidence to back up his assertion that such a cover-up is possible, nor is it unprecedented.
(ascunde) utilizează Notepadul pentru a vedea cum va arăta Profilul tău cu taguri html,înainte de aţi schimba profilul.(numai membrii plătitori) (rednaz23) (arată toate sfaturile)