PDA

View Full Version : If you had the power to go back and change a horrible event in history


marukisu
23-05-08, 00:03
...

ajrich17901
23-05-08, 00:03
911 for obvious reasons

croft94
23-05-08, 00:04
The Holocaust:(

USP
23-05-08, 00:05
The creation of this thread.

stranger1992
23-05-08, 00:06
December 2007 :rolleyes:

Yeah the Holocaust seems pretty grim enough to be changed. Thing is, should it be changed and what effect would it have?

suikos
23-05-08, 00:20
I wouldn't chnage anything. As tragic as all that happened might be you don't know what would happen.
Take the obvious and already mentioned holocaust. Ket's say there is no Hitler. Who knows if Stalin wouldn't have overrun half the world at some day. And people like Mussolini would have stayed in power. Maybe to this day Italy would be a dictatorship. And Even nations like France, Great Britain or the USA changed for the better because of what happened.

Real Life Raider
23-05-08, 00:22
Hurricane Katrina for example..

I don't think it is possible to prevent a hurricane......


Realistically, Adolf Hitler was a regular soldier in World War One.

If some lucky tommy could have put a bullet through his head, millions of people would not have died in World War Two.

Encore
23-05-08, 00:27
If you're talking about "horrible events in history", there's so many of them, that the only way to truly correct injustices was to erase mankind's existance itself. ;)

Anyways, I think the thing about the world I would like to see erased from the past the most, is the colonization and exploitation of Africa ever since the discoveries. All the **** that continent's in today could be traced back to there, I think.
I have no idea how that "event" could be prevented though.



I'd like to change a couple of horrible events in MY life as well. But then I remember that Butterfly Effect movie :yik:

Real Life Raider
23-05-08, 01:16
I remember that Butterfly Effect movie :yik:

Ha ha!

And I remember Back to the Future! :D

amiro1989
23-05-08, 01:41
Mankind.

patriots88888
23-05-08, 01:45
Ha ha!

And I remember Back to the Future! :D

Or The Simpson's Holloween Special (can't remember exactly which one). Homer steps on a bug in prehistoric times and his family becomes lizard tounged. Hahaha. :vlol:

Twilight
23-05-08, 01:51
who knows what would happen if you change the history of tragic events; you could make it worst.
i'd go back to when the first car was being made, and right then and there change the plans to make it non-pollution, and have That non-pollution technology be used in factories. like geo-thermal, air pressure, something besides coal/oil. That would save a future catastrophy of global warming.

hera7days
23-05-08, 05:00
I would save the dinosaurs from going extinct. Who cares what impact that would have? Dinosaurs are awesome!

Seriously, I wouldn't do anything. I would be able to handle that kind of power.

Quasimodo
23-05-08, 05:10
I would go back and stamp the first cockroach to death. Die, you dirty little ****ers, die!!

Shrantellatessa
23-05-08, 05:14
Or The Simpson's Holloween Special (can't remember exactly which one). Homer steps on a bug in prehistoric times and his family becomes lizard tounged. Hahaha. :vlol:

That's Treehouse of Horror V ;)

As to answer the thread, there are too many things I'd change in history, but since I don't have that ability, I'll keep my "dreams" to myself :p

Cochrane
23-05-08, 05:52
This is a difficult question because it's always difficult to tell what impacts it would have. World War II is the easiest example: Nobody doubts that it was bad, but lots of modern technology can be traced back there.

Another thing would be the car idea by Twilight. First of all, electric cars have been around longer than gasoline driven ones, so the only way to fulfill that wish would be to prevent the invention of the internal combustion engine. This would, in turn, mean that steam engines in stationary applications, trains and ships would not be replaced by more efficient and clean diesel motors, and planes would be completely out of the question. Would that be a better idea?

SamReeves
23-05-08, 06:29
The assassination of President Lincoln. It could have saved a lot of blood for both the Union and Rebels.

Naomichi
23-05-08, 06:39
I'd go back and stop myself from zipping myself up into my pants... That was painful.

Elysia
23-05-08, 06:43
Causality, schmausality, eh?

Changing anything, good or bad, from history would irrevocably change the present / future... so I'm saying I'd change nothing.

Well, okay, apart from hera7days idea. Because dinosaurs are indeed awesome! :D

Spikey
23-05-08, 06:43
I wouldn't change anything at all, there's too many possible situations for something worse to come out of the change. Even though at first glance, preventing a war or the like seems like a good idea, if that war didn't happen then another war could have taken it's place...one with a far greater number of casualties. ;)

Lara Croft Fan Joe
23-05-08, 06:59
Nothing. What will be will be, changing the past could create lots of undesirable situations.

Mister_Creazil
23-05-08, 07:03
11th September 2001.

RAID
23-05-08, 07:07
I would go back and stamp the first cockroach to death. Die, you dirty little ****ers, die!!
:vlol: so true

Drone
23-05-08, 08:57
no need to play gods ... some gods. I'd change nothing, everything happens, happens for reason :wve:

Lara's home
23-05-08, 08:59
I think, if only one thing.. I would stop the Nazi's before they ever got their power.
Millions died of torture, and that beats pretty much anything imo.

Nausinous
23-05-08, 09:14
November 5th, I'd make sure Guy Fawkes got his chance :)

digitizedboy
23-05-08, 11:23
I would seriously like to do something to change the event of 1982 - The Falklands War. Something which was totally unnecessary and just because it was the general elections in Britain at the time, and Maggie Thatcher's cunning plan to try and win it. Damn cow.

I wished there was something that could've been done about the British Empire through the centuries too. It just seemed like a competition between other European nations to see how many lands we could rape. Maybe we should've just let Spain and Portugal get along with it instead. *shrugs* I'm just saying this because it's a part of British heritage or history not to be proud of.

Legends
23-05-08, 11:24
September 11th 2001. I'd pretty much do anything to prevent it from happening.

Archetype
23-05-08, 11:25
The nazi's

Hybrid Soldier
23-05-08, 13:51
I wouldn't chnage anything. As tragic as all that happened might be you don't know what would happen.
Take the obvious and already mentioned holocaust. Ket's say there is no Hitler. Who knows if Stalin wouldn't have overrun half the world at some day. And people like Mussolini would have stayed in power. Maybe to this day Italy would be a dictatorship. And Even nations like France, Great Britain or the USA changed for the better because of what happened.

Exactly. Yes a lot of tragic things have happened but i'd not want to change anything because i believe everything happens for a reason.

TR93
23-05-08, 14:38
September 11th 2001. I'd pretty much do anything to prevent it from happening.

Same here, I'ts 11 days before my birthday, what a bad thing to happen, so many people dead.
I would do anything to stop it from happening too

john_york
23-05-08, 14:43
Pol Pott's rise to power in Cambodia and the subsequent genocide of hundreds of thousands (no-one's quite sure how many) Cambodian people. I've never been as stunned, moved and totally numbed by anything as much as I was when visiting an old high school in the Cambodian capital that was used as a prison for holding people before they were taken to the 'killing fields'. Utterly horrendous, and I'd prevent it in a second given the chance.

Gregori
23-05-08, 14:48
I don't think it is possible to prevent a hurricane......


Realistically, Adolf Hitler was a regular soldier in World War One.

If some lucky tommy could have put a bullet through his head, millions of people would not have died in World War Two.

Nobody knows that for sure. World War II wasn't caused just by one man. Wars have this way of springing up when their is tension between various powers and groups over resources. They are then backwards-rationalized.

Dictators, Gangsters and Terrorists also have this tendency to appear and rise to the top when the local conditions are right. They are more like symptom of society gone awry. The conditions of the Treaty of Versaille messed up Germany so bad, it wasn't particularily suprising a character like Hitler would arise. You have to take into consideration that loads of people voted and supported this guy and helped carry out those crimes.

The time Hitler came to power, Fascist regimes and movements were popping up all over the world.
Right wing politics were the thing of the day whether that be Mussolini, Stalin or Franco.

stereopathic
23-05-08, 15:12
The creation of this thread.

aw. a little ray of sunshine.

mizuno_suisei
23-05-08, 15:19
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings :wve:

touchthesky
23-05-08, 15:21
I don't think I'd change anything major. Maybe just make Woolworh's turn back into Big W's :(. I miss em.

Mad Tony
23-05-08, 15:34
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings :wve:There was a thread about this a while ago. Somebody (I can't remember who it was) said that more people could've died had the bombings not occurred. There are two reasons for this:

1) The Allies would've been fighting the Japanese, which obviously would've resulted in a lot more allied deaths
2) This person mentioned something about the Japanese and how they would've fought until the last man. So obviously the Japanese would've probably suffered more losses too.

Nobody knows what would've happened had they not been bombed, but I personally think equal numbers of people would've suffered, if not more. Don't forget, the bombings ended the biggest and most devastating war in the history of mankind.

What would've been ideal is if the Japanese had surrendered along with the Germans, which they didn't.

As for the event I'd change: September 11th.

Fish.
23-05-08, 15:35
I'd punch the hijackers on the 9/11 flights and make them stop. Maybe then, gas wouldn't be $4 a gallon in 2008. :)

mizuno_suisei
23-05-08, 15:54
There was a thread about this a while ago. Somebody (I can't remember who it was) said that more people could've died had the bombings not occurred. There are two reasons for this:

1) The Allies would've been fighting the Japanese, which obviously would've resulted in a lot more allied deaths
2) This person mentioned something about the Japanese and how they would've fought until the last man. So obviously the Japanese would've probably suffered more losses too.

Nobody knows what would've happened had they not been bombed, but I personally think equal numbers of people would've suffered, if not more. Don't forget, the bombings ended the biggest and most devastating war in the history of mankind.

What would've been ideal is if the Japanese had surrendered along with the Germans, which they didn't.

As for the event I'd change: September 11th.

Yeah, I understand what you mean, but I guess no-one could be sure what would have happened if Hiroshima and Nagasaki werent bombed, because It happened, so no-one can really assume. The Peace Park was a big eye opener.

I completely forgot 9/11. That I would definately would go back and stop. :)

Lara Croft Fan Joe
23-05-08, 16:08
I can understand why people would stop 9/11, but what effect would that have on the future? Something much worse could happen because of it, I mean 9/11 affected everyone in the world, imagine how different things could be. I'd rather not have to get used to that.

stereopathic
23-05-08, 16:09
Pol Pott's rise to power in Cambodia and the subsequent genocide of hundreds of thousands (no-one's quite sure how many) Cambodian people. I've never been as stunned, moved and totally numbed by anything as much as I was when visiting an old high school in the Cambodian capital that was used as a prison for holding people before they were taken to the 'killing fields'. Utterly horrendous, and I'd prevent it in a second given the chance.

yeah, that's a really good one.

and the hiroshima bombings were truly horrible. i know operation: downfall estimated something like 1,000,000 american casualties, ten million japanese. possibly millions of other allieds as well. so truman elected to drop the bomb instead. it's still a debated descision.

if one good thing came of it, it's that the world became aware of how terrible the consequences of nuclear strikes could really be. hopefully, that will go down as a lesson learned and it will never happen again.

the nazis were no prize either.

Gregori
23-05-08, 16:10
There was a thread about this a while ago. Somebody (I can't remember who it was) said that more people could've died had the bombings not occurred. There are two reasons for this:

1) The Allies would've been fighting the Japanese, which obviously would've resulted in a lot more allied deaths
2) This person mentioned something about the Japanese and how they would've fought until the last man. So obviously the Japanese would've probably suffered more losses too.

Nobody knows what would've happened had they not been bombed, but I personally think equal numbers of people would've suffered, if not more. Don't forget, the bombings ended the biggest and most devastating war in the history of mankind.

What would've been ideal is if the Japanese had surrendered along with the Germans, which they didn't.

As for the event I'd change: September 11th.

Thats based on the assumption that the US had to totally conquer and occupy mainland Japan. It didn't. Japan had been long defeated in the War. It was not really a credible threat to the US at that point.

Even had the goal been total occupation, the US could have demonstrated the weapon's destructive force in an unpopulated area, like above the sea off the coast of Tokyo etc etc

US had to show off to the entire world that it had the most powerful destructive weapon , much like Bin Laden felt he had to show off with the epic scale of 9/11 by using four 747's and crashing into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.

This is what violent powers do, regardless of the humanitarian gloss that painted over afterwards.

Mad Tony
23-05-08, 16:22
I can understand why people would stop 9/11, but what effect would that have on the future? Something much worse could happen because of it, I mean 9/11 affected everyone in the world, imagine how different things could be. I'd rather not have to get used to that.I can sort of see where you're coming from. An even worse terrorist attack could've occurred because the security improvements that happened after 9/11 may not have happened.

Thats based on the assumption that the US had to totally conquer and occupy mainland Japan. It didn't. Japan had been long defeated in the War. It was not really a credible threat to the US at that point.

Even had the goal been total occupation, the US could have demonstrated the weapon's destructive force in an unpopulated area, like above the sea off the coast of Tokyo etc etc

US had to show off to the entire world that it had the most powerful destructive weapon , much like Bin Laden felt he had to show off with the epic scale of 9/11 by using four 747's and crashing into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.

This is what violent powers do, regardless of the humanitarian gloss that painted over afterwards.Don't compare the actions of a country that was fighting for freedom and against tyranny during a war to the actions of a cowardly terrorist. :rolleyes:

Gregori
23-05-08, 16:30
Don't compare the actions of a country that was fighting for freedom and against tyranny during a war to the actions of a cowardly terrorist. :rolleyes:

Why Not?

They both used killing a massive amount civilians and a showing off destructive capability on a huge scale to influence the politics of another country. Thats exactly what terrorists do!

Not remebering the History has made people swallow this bull**** that the allies were "fighting for freedom" when all that infact happened was another powerful nation threatened their own power. They weren't particularily opposed to to the fact that Hitler, Musolini, Franco or Hirohito were dictators once that didn't threaten their own power. US fought against Japan simple because it attacked a US base, not because they were fighting for noble ideals.

There are all these fanciful ideas about why WWII was fought and nearly all of them are untrue. It wasn't this Epic battle about Ideals, between good and bad etc etc. It was simply a huge conflict between different competing powers and the public in all those countries got screwed by it.

Mad Tony
23-05-08, 16:36
Why Not?

They both used killing a massive amount civilians and a showing off destructive capability on a huge scale to influence the politics of another country. Thats exactly what terrorists do!

History has made people swallow this bull**** that the allies were "fighting for freedom" when all that infact happened was another powerful nation threatened their own power. They weren't particularily opposed to to the fact that Hitler, Musolini, Franco or Hirohito were dictators once that didn't threaten their own power. US fought against Japan simple because it attacked a US base, not because they were fighting for noble ideals.Not this crap again. The US did not bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima to influence the politics of another country, they did it to end the damn war.

And the fact you just denied what the Allied nations were obviously fighting for disgusts me. It really does.

Gregori
23-05-08, 16:40
Not this crap again. The US did not bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima to influence the politics of another country, they did it to end the damn war.

And the fact you just denied what the Allied nations were obviously fighting for disgusts me. It really does.

Good, I hope you're digusted, but Its true. Just read the actual history not the propaganda and fanciful notions written afterwards.

If using the mass killing of civilians to force a surrender isn't influencing politics, I don't know what is. Terrorists do exactly the same thing. They kill civilians in order to get a goverment to give into their demands. Its exactly the same.

Mr.Burns
23-05-08, 16:42
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/eatdrink033.gif

Mad Tony
23-05-08, 16:45
Good, I hope you're digusted, but Its true. Just read the actual history not the propaganda written afterwards.

If using the mass killing of civilians to force a surrender isn't influencing politics, I don't know what is. Terrorists do exactly the same thing. They kill civilians in order to get a goverment to give into their demands. Its exactly the same.I'm disgusted at you.
I do read the actual history. I chose to carry on learning history in school.

Now I'm not expert on the Japanese in WWII, but I do know that they would fight to the last man. They saw surrender as dishonorable. Do you really think they would've surrendered as easily as the Germans had? It's not like the Germans surrendered easily anyway.

Don't forget, the Allied troops, you know, the good guys (or the bad guys as you probably view them) were fighting for freedom.

stereopathic
23-05-08, 16:49
thread=hijacked

Obscure
23-05-08, 16:51
thread=hijacked

Not particularly. They're still keeping it about History and the grim events in it :) It's spam, but not spam.

What I don't understand is that people actually try to justify the bombing of Hiroshima etc. There's nothing justice about it and it's not like it cleaned the slate clean from Japan, there were many deformed children after that cruel day and for what? To end a war that was ending?
But anyway, I'm not here to fight, just throwing in my opinion :wve:

Gregori
23-05-08, 16:52
I'm disgusted at you.
I do read the actual history. I chose to carry on learning history in school.

Now I'm not expert on the Japanese in WWII, but I do know that they would fight to the last man. They saw surrender as dishonorable. Do you really think they would've surrendered as easily as the Germans had? It's not like the Germans surrendered easily anyway.

Don't forget, the Allied troops, you know, the good guys (or the bad guys as you probably view them) were fighting for freedom.

Good! I hope you're disgusted.

You're once again assuming that conquering and occupying japan. They had already lost the war long ago.


Don't forget, every one in a war likes to think they are the "Good Guys". Bin Laden and the 19 Hijackers think they are the good guys!!

The Allies weren't fighting for freedom, simply against other power states that were either threatening or attacking them. Thats what powerful states do.

Mr.Burns
23-05-08, 16:53
Keep it civil guys.

stereopathic
23-05-08, 16:57
The Allies weren't fighting for freedom, simply against other power states that were either threatening or attacking them. Thats what powerful states do.

^i just want to make sure i'm clear on your stance, gregori. when the US was attacked by japan and declared war upon by germany, we were wrong to go to war? sorry if i'm misunderstanding you, but if that's what you are saying, how would you propose the US handle this?

Mad Tony
23-05-08, 16:58
Not particularly. They're still keeping it about History and the grim events in it :) It's spam, but not spam.

What I don't understand is that people actually try to justify the bombing of Hiroshima etc. There's nothing justice about it and it's not like it cleaned the slate clean from Japan, there were many deformed children after that cruel day and for what? To end a war that was ending?
But anyway, I'm not here to fight, just throwing in my opinion :wve:Well, as I said earlier, the Allies would've suffered more casualties had the bombings not have happened. I personally think that the Japanese would've suffered just as many casualties because of how they view surrender. The latter is an opinion, although the former is a fact.

Good! I hope you're disgusted.

You're once again assuming that conquering and occupying japan. They had already lost the war long ago.


Don't forget, every one a war likes to think they are the "Good Guys". Bin Laden and the 19 Hijackers think they are the good guys!!

The Allies weren't fighting for freedom, simply against other power states that were either threatening or attacking them. Thats what powerful states do.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg/425px-Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg
They were fighting for freedom against tyranny. Please accept it.

Dark Lugia 2
23-05-08, 16:59
I'd stop WW1, since it lead to WW2 and.. yeah. It'd stop the bombings of japan n all that. :p there are so many more tragic things than 9/11 imo, just saying that cause its the first thing alot of people say :p

Gregori
23-05-08, 17:05
I don't accept propaganda and dogma. Even with Flashy posters!!

Just look at what these all countries were doing before WWII broke out. They chopped up parts of Europe and gave just them to the Nazi Germany, without consulting the people who lived in those countries.

Most of the allied countries had no problems with the brutality of Franco, Hitler or Mussolini before the war broke out. They just didn't want to have to fight another expensive war with Germany. They weren't all that opposed to the fact that they were fascists or were opressing the Jews.



The reason for WWII were far more pragmatic and practical than ideological. Anybody here play Rome:Total War?

Cochrane
23-05-08, 17:22
In my very humble opinion either of you is wrong when you say that there was only one reason for allied participation in World War II. Part of it was being threatened in power, but I think a large part of it also was an ideological war (that the US started way too late to participate in, of course). Things like the munich accords were clearly wrong in hindsight, but part of the motivation behind them wasn't that the British couldn't care less, but rather that they wanted time to bring their arms production up. There is no black and white in this war. Not at all.

As for the bombings: I don't know whether they were necessary. One point one has to keep in mind is that the effects of this radiation were largely unknown at the time. Right into the fifties the US government still sent volunteers to nuclear test sites so they could be "hardened" by being exposed to the radiation - a mistake that proved to be fatal for some of them. If the US government didn't know it then, how should they have known it before?

On the other hand, would the japanese really have fought to the last man? It's not as if dropping the nuclear bombs robbed them of that opportunity, after all. They could have all agreed to be honorably blown up and be irradiated, but they surrendered. Is it really 100% certain they wouldn't have done so when faced with a superiority of conventional weapons? I don't think so.

So, it's all a matter of interpretation, and none (not even mine :D ) is guaranteed to be correct.

Paul H
23-05-08, 18:17
Thats based on the assumption that the US had to totally conquer and occupy mainland Japan. It didn't. Japan had been long defeated in the War. It was not really a credible threat to the US at that point.

Even had the goal been total occupation, the US could have demonstrated the weapon's destructive force in an unpopulated area, like above the sea off the coast of Tokyo etc etc

US had to show off to the entire world that it had the most powerful destructive weapon , much like Bin Laden felt he had to show off with the epic scale of 9/11 by using four 747's and crashing into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.

This is what violent powers do, regardless of the humanitarian gloss that painted over afterwards.

Good post apart from the bit about bin Laden.

patriots88888
23-05-08, 18:50
FDR didn't get the USA involved with WWII (the fight against Nazi Germany) as much as he actually wanted to before Pearl Harbor because he was concerned about the public perception about another long, drawn out war. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it (fight against Axis powers) became a much easier decision for him. ;)

Mad Tony
23-05-08, 20:48
Good post apart from the bit about bin Laden.Oh please. Let me guess, Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11?

Cochrane
23-05-08, 21:26
Oh please. Let me guess, Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11?

Stuff like that is the reason why Paul H is on my ignore list. There are days when I think these conspiracy theorists were the worst results of 9/11, seriously.

Mad Tony
23-05-08, 21:43
Stuff like that is the reason why Paul H is on my ignore list. There are days when I think these conspiracy theorists were the worst results of 9/11, seriously.Lol, you've got a point there. Whenever there's a terrorist attack nowadays it's always "oh, it's the government". The 7/7 London bombings is another example. Some people actually believe the British government played a hand in the attacks. What the conspiracy theorists ignore are all the facts which prove that it was just a terrorist attack.

Agent 47
23-05-08, 22:16
no matter what Paul H believes it is his right to hold such beliefs and theories no matter how plausible or implausible.

there's two kinds of folks in this world
1, those that swallow whatever their government tells em
2, thoses who dare to challenge what their government tells em

doesn't matter what the event is, governments will always spin a yarn to it's people, and even bend the facts to suit their agendas (whatever they may be)

conspiracy theorists only seek and exploit plot holes in whatever said government tells them,there is no right or wrong to holding a particular belief about certain events, we all have theories about something, we all (or most of us) challenge our leaders about something. :)

thecentaur
23-05-08, 22:19
-911
-ww1
-ww2
-pretty much all wars
-holocaust
-flu epi/pandemic of 1912
-global warming
-salem witch trials
-watergate
-mccarthyism
-establishment of mc donalds
-the invention of militarism
-korean war (which barely proved anything)
-invention of a-bomb, h-bomb

TheStoryteller
23-05-08, 22:19
Sorry, i obviously mixed this thread up with another one.

can a mod get my last post over to the thread it belongs?

thx :)

TRfan23
23-05-08, 22:21
Apparently scientists believe that if you went faster then the speed of light. You would end up going back in time, however our bodies wouldn't be able to take such force!
However there is no proof and no evidence, besides you would be breaking the law of physics! http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae283.cfm

Besides I wouldn't change the past as it's known to be a Time Paradox!
My original plan was to save Jesus from the cross but we probably wouldn't be worshiping him today...

Paul H
23-05-08, 22:22
Lol, you've got a point there. Whenever there's a terrorist attack nowadays it's always "oh, it's the government". The 7/7 London bombings is another example. Some people actually believe the British government played a hand in the attacks. What the conspiracy theorists ignore are all the facts which prove that it was just a terrorist attack.

Then you should tell these "facts" to the FBI at once. Because they say that there is "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11".

http://jayzerz.blogspot.com/2006/06/fbi-says-no-hard-evidence-connecting.html

So what do you (or Cochrane) know that the FBI doesn't know?

Mr.Burns
23-05-08, 22:24
@Thestoryteller: Unfortunately we can't move posts. Try reposting in the correct thread.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but I won't flat out ignore any possibility. You never know.

HaveFaith4Lara
23-05-08, 22:28
-911
-Holocaust

I can't think right now.

Mad Tony
23-05-08, 22:34
Then you should tell these "facts" to the FBI at once. Because they say that there is "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11".

http://jayzerz.blogspot.com/2006/06/fbi-says-no-hard-evidence-connecting.html

So what do you (or Cochrane) know that the FBI doesn't know?I was actually refferring to the 7/7 bombings, not 9/11. But even still, just because the FBI didn't mention 9/11 specifically, doesn't mean they don't want him for that. It also says "Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world"

But what's this then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video
He admitted responsibility for the attacks.

And on here it says that the FBI has evidence that Bin Laden was connected to 9/11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden#September_11.2C_2001_attacks

remote91
23-05-08, 22:38
I'd go back and advise Core what to do during the production of Angel Of Darkness and tell them what horrible things happen in the future..

Agent 47
23-05-08, 22:40
I was actually refferring to the 7/7 bombings, not 9/11. But even still, just because the FBI didn't mention 9/11 specifically, doesn't mean they don't want him for that. It also says "Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world"

But what's this then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video
He admitted responsibility for the attacks.

And on here it says that the FBI has evidence that Bin Laden was connected to 9/11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden#September_11.2C_2001_attacks

Wiki? if it's on there it must be true,bit like IMBD :vlol:

don't bbelieve everything you read MT, governments etc only tell us what they want us to know.....just like history :D

@remote, totally agree with you :jmp:

TRfan23
23-05-08, 22:41
@ Paul H & Mad Tony - Bin Laden would have addmited he was involved.

Plus I hate politics, nothing but corrupted.

I have a feeling we're straying off-topic here.

Mad Tony
23-05-08, 22:47
Wiki? if it's on there it must be true,bit like IMBD :vlol:

don't bbelieve everything you read MT, governments etc only tell us what they want us to know.....just like history :D

@remote, totally agree with you :jmp:Yes, it is in Wikipedia, therefore it could be false, but it doesn't mean it's definitely false though, does it?

But the thing about Bin Laden admitting responsibility is true. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html

Paul H
23-05-08, 22:50
I was actually refferring to the 7/7 bombings, not 9/11. But even still, just because the FBI didn't mention 9/11 specifically, doesn't mean they don't want him for that. It also says "Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world"

But not for 9/11.

Nobody is denying that bin Laden is a terrorist. The point is that he was not behind the 9/11 attacks. Why? Because the facts (the real ones) render his involvement demonstrably impossible.

But what's this then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video
He admitted responsibility for the attacks.But the FBI know about that video, and yet they still say there is no hard evidence against him. I asked you what you know that the FBI doesn't know.

And on here it says that the FBI has evidence that Bin Laden was connected to 9/11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden#September_11.2C_2001_attacksWhere? Show where it says any such thing on that page.

Admles
23-05-08, 22:52
Hmmmm........ I'd stop them making the 2nd TR Movie, or AOD :D


In all seriousness, I'd change nothing, life is the way it is because of our history; interfering with history could have such a catastrophic change now

Mad Tony
23-05-08, 22:54
But not for 9/11.

Nobody is denying that bin Laden is a terrorist. The point is that he was not behind the 9/11 attacks. Why? Because the facts (the real ones) render his involvement demonstrably impossible.

But the FBI know about that video, and yet they still say there is no hard evidence against him. I asked you what you know that the FBI doesn't know.

Where? Show where it says any such thing on that page.Oh, so facts you don't like aren't "real facts?"

And no, there isn't anything I know that the FBI doesn't. I never said there was.

"Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable."It says it right at the top.

Agent 47
23-05-08, 22:57
Yes, it is in Wikipedia, therefore it could be false, but it doesn't mean it's definitely false though, does it?

But the thing about Bin Laden admitting responsibility is true. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html

never said it wasn't :D

Paul H
23-05-08, 22:58
But the thing about Bin Laden admitting responsibility is true. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html

Is it? Then what about him denying responsibility?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html

Is that true also?

Will the real bin Laden please stand up?

Mad Tony
23-05-08, 23:00
Is it? Then what about him denying responsibility?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html

Is that true also?

Will the real bin Laden please stand up?Look at the dates. The article I posted is from 2004 while the article you posted is from 2004.
It's exactly like somebody denying a crime and then later confessing to it. In fact, it is somebody denying a crime and then confessing to it.

Paul H
23-05-08, 23:18
"Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable."It says it right at the top.

Yes, so it does. My mistake.

But if there is "clear and irrefutable" evidence, why don't they say what it is?

And why did the FBI’s Rex Tomb say there is "no hard evidence"?

And why is there no mention of this "clear and irrefutable" evidence of 9/11 involvement on bin Laden’s "Most Wanted" listing? Why does it only refer to the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya?

Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury in relation to the embassy bombings but not in relation to 9/11. Why? The FBI’s Rex Tomb again:

"The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than [sic] decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected [sic] Bin Laden to 9/11."

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Edit: Here (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm) is the relevant page on the FBI's own site. Anyone see any mention of 9/11 there?

marukisu
24-05-08, 00:52
...

Encore
24-05-08, 01:17
Stuff like that is the reason why Paul H is on my ignore list. There are days when I think these conspiracy theorists were the worst results of 9/11, seriously.

:vlol:

Thousands of people died in the attacks and the wars that followed, world economy went to hell, and the worst thing about 9/11 is the lunatic conspiracy theorists.

Oh man this is genius. :vlol:

Cochrane
24-05-08, 05:19
:vlol:

Thousands of people died in the attacks and the wars that followed, world economy went to hell, and the worst thing about 9/11 is the lunatic conspiracy theorists.

Oh man this is genius. :vlol:

I know it's not the worst result by any margin, but it can be horribly annoying.

Yes, everyone has the right to think whatever he wants to, and yes, it is a good idea to not believe everything the government says. However, there is a line to being stupid, and having the right to cross that line is not the same as saying that it's a good idea.

Flipper1987
24-05-08, 05:23
Thats based on the assumption that the US had to totally conquer and occupy mainland Japan. It didn't. Japan had been long defeated in the War. It was not really a credible threat to the US at that point.

Holy smokes! This statement is shows a tremendous lack of knowlegde about the closing days of World War II.

When Allied forces in the Pacific theater began closing in on Japanese islands in early 1945, it's true that the empire of Japan was headed towards defeat; however, they were not yet defeated b/c they REFUSED to surrender. Until a dangerous & destructive enemy surrenders, it's still considered a threat. Just tell the US soldiers who invaded the Japanese islands of Iwo Jima & Okinawa that Japan was not a "credible threat."

One of the reasons why the Allies had to invade Germany is because Hitler refused to surrender. Japan's military government also refused to surrender as the Allies closed in on Japan's four main islands. In fact, as MacArthur & Nimitz employed its "island-hopping" & "leap-frogging" strategy in the Pacific against Japanese-held islands, they discovered that Japanese soldiers on these islands usually refused to surrender. Very few Japanese soldiers became POWs b/c they usually fought to the bitter end. This was largely due to Japan's historic code of honor. In addition, Japanese military commanders informed their soldiers that if they were taken prisoners by the US & the Allies, they would be severely tortured b/c the Americans were vicious brutes. Of course that was a complete crock but the Japanese soldiers believed it.

In addition, Japanese civilians were told the same thing about the Allies. The Japanese government handed out guns, swords, & other weapons to its civilians to prepare for the Allied invasion of the mainland. When President Truman attended the Potsdam Conference in late July 1945, his top generals were planning the invasion of mainland Japan. They estimated that anywhere b/w 250,000 to 750,000 Allied troops would be killed, while Japanese fatalities would number in the millions (approx. 200,000 died form the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings). The only reason why the invasion never occurred is b/c of the successful test of the atomic bomb in Los Alamos during the conference. Once the Allies had "the bomb," they issued the Potsdam Declaration, ordering Japan to surrender or face "prompt & utter destruction." This warning was delivered numerous times in the days leading up to August 6, 1945.

Even had the goal been total occupation, the US could have demonstrated the weapon's destructive force in an unpopulated area, like above the sea off the coast of Tokyo etc etc

That is also inaccurate. The Allies had to pick a medium-sized city to show the Japanese government how serious the Allied threat was. Even when the city of Hiroshima was bombed, the Japanese government still REFUSED to surrender. That led to the Nagasaki bombing three days later on August 9. Even after that it took the Japanese government another 5 days to finally surrender unconditionally. If the US followed your advice & detonated the atomic bomb over an unpopulated area, the Japanese government would not have surrendered. The US picked those cities to show how destructive the A-bombs truly were.

US had to show off to the entire world that it had the most powerful destructive weapon , much like Bin Laden felt he had to show off with the epic scale of 9/11 by using four 747's and crashing into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.

That comparison is bogus. The atomic bombs ended the most destructive war in human history. The 9/11 attacks were a selfish act conducted by the Al-Qaeda terrorist group that started the War on Terror.

This is what violent powers do, regardless of the humanitarian gloss that painted over afterwards.

The US was/is a violent power? May I remind you that the US was attacked on December 7 & September 11. "Humanitarian gloss?" What the heck are you talking about? Truman was deeply troubled about dropping the A-bombs; however, he was more deeply troubled about the massive loss of life that a full-scale invasion of Japan would entail. I have never heard any historian or historical expert refer to the "humanitarian" aspects of dropping the A-bombs. What fourth-rate university professor or internet website taught you this?

FLIPPER

spikejones
24-05-08, 05:42
NO! The world as we know it would cease to exist!

Flipper1987
24-05-08, 05:46
But if there is "clear and irrefutable" evidence, why don't they say what it is?

I normally don't respond to 9/11 conspiratists &/or bin Laden apologists like Paul H; I usually let their lunatic ravings destroy whatever credibility that they have left.

I'll let these websites show once again what every reasonable person in the world already believes:

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.tape.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26418

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html

Good lord, there are tons of these articles, many from left-leaning news sites. But according to a few people in this forum, all these articles/videos/evidence are all a crock. ROFLMAO!

FLIPPER

TR 4 LIFE
24-05-08, 05:46
If I had that power....I would change for Adam to never eat that apple! we couldv'e lived through a paradise! Or change for Pandora from never opening that box!! .....i'm sorry, i'm speaking mythology! But there would be a lot of things we could have changed....but hey, it's God's will! :)

spikejones
24-05-08, 05:55
If I had that power....I would change for Adam to never eat that apple! we couldv'e lived through a paradise!

ermm.... Had Adam and Eve not eaten the forbidden fruit, then we would not exist. Childbirth was their punishment for disobeying the word of the Lord. It's somewhere in the Book of Genesis.


Or change for Pandora from never opening that box!! .....i'm sorry, i'm speaking mythology! But there would be a lot of things we could have changed....but hey, it's God's will! :)
hope is still in the box!!

TR 4 LIFE
24-05-08, 06:10
ermm.... Had Adam and Eve not eaten the forbidden fruit, then we would not exist. Childbirth was their punishment for disobeying the word of the Lord. It's somewhere in the Book of Genesis.


hope is still in the box!!


oh! lol! my bad...I thought the Adam and Eve story was like something else. And ur right! hope IS still inside the box.

patriots88888
24-05-08, 06:13
@ Flipper1987

That is also inaccurate. The Allies had to pick a medium-sized city to show the Japanese government how serious the Allied threat was. Even when the city of Hiroshima was bombed, the Japanese government still REFUSED to surrender. That led to the Nagasaki bombing three days later on August 9. Even after that it took the Japanese government another 5 days to finally surrender unconditionally. If the US followed your advice & detonated the atomic bomb over an unpopulated area, the Japanese government would not have surrendered. The US picked those cities to show how destructive the A-bombs truly were.

While i agree with what you are saying, it is only partly true. These two cities were chosen not so much because of their size, but because they were considered good strategic targets. They were industrial cities and had military importance to the Japanese. ;)

Paul H
24-05-08, 07:01
I normally don't respond to 9/11 conspiratists &/or bin Laden apologists like Paul H; I usually let their lunatic ravings destroy whatever credibility that they have left.

I'll let these websites show once again what every reasonable person in the world already believes:

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.tape.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26418

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html

Good lord, there are tons of these articles, many from left-leaning news sites. But according to a few people in this forum, all these articles/videos/evidence are all a crock. ROFLMAO!

FLIPPER

As I pointed out before your arrival, the FBI are fully aware of the alleged "confession" on that video tape, and yet they still say there is "no hard evidence" of bin Ladenís involvement in 9/11. And they still donít mention 9/11 among the reasons given for his "Most Wanted Terrorist" status.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

So why do you think that is? Are the FBI also conspiracy theorists and "bin Laden apologists"?

Some people believe that the tape is a fake but I have never put forward that argument because even if it were genuine it would prove nothing more than that bin Laden was happy to take what he sees as the "credit" for 9/11 because it elevated him to world superstar status among those he seeks to lead.

The truth is that there are over 500 pieces of solid evidence proving that bin Laden and his alleged 19 cavemen hijackers could not possibly have been behind the 9/11 attacks. So what is one dubious video tape with an even more dubious "confession" on it by comparison with that veritable mountain of solid evidence?

People frequently "confess" to things they had nothing to do with for a variety of reasons and it doesnít take a genius to work out why bin Laden would "confess" to "masterminding" 9/11. But the hard facts (more than 500 of them) prove that "confession" to be false. If he were to "confess" to carrying out the notorious Whitechapel murders in the late 19th century, would that prove that he was Jack the Ripper?

Mad Tony
24-05-08, 08:53
ermm.... Had Adam and Eve not eaten the forbidden fruit, then we would not exist. Childbirth was their punishment for disobeying the word of the Lord. It's somewhere in the Book of Genesis.Are you forgetting the commandment God gave Adam and Eve? It's a very famous one in fact.

"Go forth and multiply"

Rivendell
24-05-08, 08:57
Childbirth wasn't a punishment. Feeling the pain of childbirth, was. :wve:

Mad Tony
24-05-08, 08:57
Childbirth wasn't a punishment. Feeling the pain of childbirth, was. :wve:Spot on. :tmb:

TRfan23
24-05-08, 10:10
ermm.... Had Adam and Eve not eaten the forbidden fruit, then we would not exist. Childbirth was their punishment for disobeying the word of the Lord. It's somewhere in the Book of Genesis.


hope is still in the box!!

My R.E teacher said that if they hadn't have eaten from the tree, then we would all be imortal. She didn't say anything about us not existing, or about childbirth.

Legend of Lara
24-05-08, 10:11
The filming of Batman & Robin. :p

Admles
24-05-08, 14:51
If I had that power....I would change for Adam to never eat that apple! we couldv'e lived through a paradise! Or change for Pandora from never opening that box!! .....i'm sorry, i'm speaking mythology! But there would be a lot of things we could have changed....but hey, it's God's will! :)

I am completely anti-reglious, but even I know that there is nothing in the bible that says it was an apple........

Rexie
24-05-08, 15:08
^

There is this thing in man's throat that is called "Adams Apple" the rumour goes that Adam ate an apple and it got stuck in his throat. And all men got that.

Drone
24-05-08, 15:13
I am completely anti-reglious, but even I know that there is nothing in the bible that says it was an apple........

you're right. It called "forbidden fruit". But what fruit it wasnn't described

Capt. Murphy
24-05-08, 15:28
I passed some gas back in fifth grade. And it was right when everyone was looking at me too. :pi:

"...Can't be personal..." It effected everybody.... In the way they seen me at that moment. It was terrible!

Edit: Then again, there was that time in 9th or 10th grade I had wood and had to walk to the front of the class to get something from the teacher.:(

x_X *dies*

cammy.
24-05-08, 16:30
There are too many to choose from...

ECB
24-05-08, 16:39
I asn't alive then, but probably JFK...

I would have said The Holocaust, but if that didn't happen, that means there's a lot more chances of it happening today. (If that makes any sense...)

Tyrannosaurus
24-05-08, 18:05
The Cretaceous extinction, obviously.

Laurencarter
24-05-08, 19:01
I would stop this Xenophobia thing going on in South Africa at the moment.

~*~Chloe~*~
24-05-08, 19:03
We're learning about the concerntration camps in History and RE at school atm. So I'd stop Hitler taking over the Germans and it would have saved millions of innocent lives.

marukisu
24-05-08, 19:13
...

~*~Chloe~*~
24-05-08, 19:15
Save all the kids that dissapeared: Milly Dowler, Holly and Jessica, Maddie McCann, Ganette Tate, Shannon Matthews (even tho she was found, but it was still horrible.)

The list could go on.

Cochrane
24-05-08, 19:21
what about slavery in america?

Why not slavery at all?

TRfan23
24-05-08, 21:43
Some dinosaurs still exist nowadays e.g. Crocodiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile

(wiki is very formal)

marukisu
25-05-08, 17:53
...

Smog
25-05-08, 18:38
I'd go back and stop George Lucas before he had a chance to ruin his own franchise.

Kamnelomo
25-05-08, 18:39
Um... My birth?..

Cochrane
25-05-08, 18:50
Do you mean just in general the different forms of slavery over the course of time? because thats what im assuming you mean. That would be nice and i would do that. But the person was listing specific things and i only asked for one event, but i guess it can be classified as one event. so they kinda broke the rules. But while they were listing specific things it suprised me that they didnt bring up slavery in america. plus to say slavery in general would imply more than one event whihc isnt what i wanted . lol but they did ist all of these specific events anway. Plus they might have thought it was too genral of a thing.

To be honest, I think slavery in america is already far broader than a single event, so I thought all slavery over the times (yes, that's what I meant) could just as well be included.

marukisu
25-05-08, 19:40
...