Taliban to Open Qatar Office for Peace Talks

The Taliban announced Tuesday that they will open an office in the Persian Gulf nation of Qatar to hold talks with the United States, an unprecedented step toward a peace process that might lead to a winding down of the 10-year war in Afghanistan.



______________________________________________________________________
"Oh, dark grin, he can't help, when he's happy looks insane, oh yeah"

They should have done this a long time ago.

i'd fucking show up to the first peace negotiations with a entourage of strippers wearing pig skin g-strings and bruce willis wrapped in bacon fat repeating 'yippy kay yay motherfuckers!' - want to make peace? the bacon bruce willis is a virgin, have sex with him 72 times and then we can talk!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: Pixël
i'd fucking show up to the first peace negotiations with a entourage of strippers wearing pig skin g-strings and bruce willis wrapped in bacon fat repeating 'yippy kay yay motherfuckers!' - want to make peace? the bacon bruce willis is a virgin, have sex with him 72 times and then we can talk!

The capitalist pig is staring to bud.

YES!

"Give peace a chance" John Lennon

Originally posted by: Pixël
i'd fucking show up to the first peace negotiations with a entourage of strippers wearing pig skin g-strings and bruce willis wrapped in bacon fat repeating 'yippy kay yay motherfuckers!' - want to make peace? the bacon bruce willis is a virgin, have sex with him 72 times and then we can talk!

ok, that was funny.

Almost as funny when the Muslim Brotherhood claimed it is a "secular" party.

Where are they building it? I want to park a van in front of it.



ph|3.MadJester - Sanity is just a 4 letter word

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
"Give peace a chance" John Lennon

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/28/lennon-was-a-closet-republican-assistant

John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

...

"I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who's an old-time communist... He enjoyed really provoking my uncle... Maybe he was being provocative... but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.

"He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he'd been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy's naivete."

Originally posted by: CATIA
Almost as funny when the Muslim Brotherhood claimed it is a "secular" party.

Yup

Talk is cheap. Let's see them show us they want peace

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: CATIA
Almost as funny when the Muslim Brotherhood claimed it is a "secular" party.

Yup

Talk is cheap. Let's see them show us they want peace

Hi dickhead.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: CATIA
Almost as funny when the Muslim Brotherhood claimed it is a "secular" party.

Yup

Talk is cheap. Let's see them show us they want peace

Hi dickhead.

Howdy
_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: CATIA
Almost as funny when the Muslim Brotherhood claimed it is a "secular" party.

Yup

Talk is cheap. Let's see them show us they want peace

Hi dickhead.

Howdy

Stop it!

i thought snake got banned

Originally posted by: -Swo0p
i thought snake got banned

Love conquers all?

Originally posted by: -Swo0p
i thought snake got banned

I had trouble following why he got banned.

I'm totally confused now.

in other news Rick Santorum says he is going to open an office in Qatar also. he strongly supports the ability of sovereign states to ban sodomy and contraception and wants to show solidarity with his Taliban brotherhood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

this should get interesting

Originally posted by: Pixël
in other news Rick Santorum says he is going to open an office in Qatar also. he strongly supports the ability of sovereign states to ban sodomy and contraception and wants to show solidarity with his Taliban brotherhood.

Rick should be careful in Qatar, while rich oil sheiks may look 'black' to him, he may not want to approach them with his desire to create manufacturing jobs to help get them back on their feet instead of giving them white people's money. next thing you know he'll be in a Middle eastern prison where sodomy is perfectly legal and contraception isn't.



http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7393607n
Post edited by Pixël at 1/3/2012 11:14:57 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: CATIA
Almost as funny when the Muslim Brotherhood claimed it is a "secular" party.

Yup

Talk is cheap. Let's see them show us they want peace

Talk IS cheap.

I say we take the first step and, oh, I don't know....get the fuck out of THEIR country!

That MIGHT be taken a serious step towards peace. Try as I might...I can't find ONE U.S. death related to the talabin BEFORE our occupation of the Middle East.
______________________________________________________________________
"Oh, dark grin, he can't help, when he's happy looks insane, oh yeah"

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
"Give peace a chance" John Lennon

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/28/lennon-was-a-closet-republican-assistant

John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

...

"I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who's an old-time communist... He enjoyed really provoking my uncle... Maybe he was being provocative... but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.

"He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he'd been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy's naivete."

Interesting. Wonder if that's actually true.

Originally posted by: FSB

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: CATIA
Almost as funny when the Muslim Brotherhood claimed it is a "secular" party.

Yup

Talk is cheap. Let's see them show us they want peace

Talk IS cheap.

I say we take the first step and, oh, I don't know....get the fuck out of THEIR country!

That MIGHT be taken a serious step towards peace. Try as I might...I can't find ONE U.S. death related to the talabin BEFORE our occupation of the Middle East.

Al Queda wouldn't have been able to function as well as they did leading up to 9/11 without the safe haven that the Taliban provided. And they were unapologetic about it.

In fact, they are more significant than Al Queda. Groups like AQ are much more easily replaced than the Taliban are.

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: FSB

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: CATIA
Almost as funny when the Muslim Brotherhood claimed it is a "secular" party.

Yup

Talk is cheap. Let's see them show us they want peace

Talk IS cheap.

I say we take the first step and, oh, I don't know....get the fuck out of THEIR country!

That MIGHT be taken a serious step towards peace. Try as I might...I can't find ONE U.S. death related to the talabin BEFORE our occupation of the Middle East.

Al Queda wouldn't have been able to function as well as they did leading up to 9/11 without the safe haven that the Taliban provided. And they were unapologetic about it.

In fact, they are more significant than Al Queda. Groups like AQ are much more easily replaced than the Taliban are.

Actually...according to "them" (new sources), the Taliban was willing to hand Bin Laden over to the U.S. on a couple of occasions. At first, and this is all pre-9/11, they want to have a multinational court to have a trial, but as the U.S. did not acknowledge the Taliban was a governing body, this of course, did not happen. Then the Taliban asked for "proof" to hand over Bin Laden. Hell, Clinton couldn't our own CIA to sign off that Bin Laden was responsible for the 1990 WTC attack, the embassy bombings, or the USS Cole.

The final blow to the Taliban was sealed with Mr. Bush who said, "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."

Yeah...that'll win the war.
______________________________________________________________________
"Oh, dark grin, he can't help, when he's happy looks insane, oh yeah"

Originally posted by: FSB
Then the Taliban asked for "proof" to hand over Bin Laden.

You mean besides all the times Bin Laden made videos saying he did it?

...I'm sure that wasn't a stalling tactic and/or a piece of international propaganda from the Taliban.

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: FSB
Then the Taliban asked for "proof" to hand over Bin Laden.

You mean besides all the times Bin Laden made videos saying he did it?

...I'm sure that wasn't a stalling tactic and/or a piece of international propaganda from the Taliban.

Most videos, other than the fatwa, were released post Torah Bora.
______________________________________________________________________
"Oh, dark grin, he can't help, when he's happy looks insane, oh yeah"

did someone seriously believe the Taliban would hand over their Muslim brother to the infidels??
_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Originally posted by: Pixël
i'd fucking show up to the first peace negotiations with a entourage of strippers wearing pig skin g-strings and bruce willis wrapped in bacon fat repeating 'yippy kay yay motherfuckers!' - want to make peace? the bacon bruce willis is a virgin, have sex with him 72 times and then we can talk!

LMAO, Funniest shit I have read all day!

Originally posted by: FSB

Actually...according to "them" (new sources),

Where are these sources?

If the Taliban would turn into a peaceful organization they'd have a seat at the table and could probably become a political party in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by: Allen

Originally posted by: FSB

Actually...according to "them" (new sources),

Where are these sources?

If the Taliban would turn into a peaceful organization they'd have a seat at the table and could probably become a political party in Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm

Over three years and on as many continents, U.S. officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html

Taliban 'offered bin Laden trial before 9/11'

The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, but the US government showed no interest, according to a senior aide to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar.

To name just a few. This is a widely known fact to those that follow it. The U.S. didn't give 2 shits about Afghanistan after it's war with Russia. Bin Laden had money, which made him an attractive "guest"...but I, personally, don't believe for one second that the entire Taliban "party" was happy he was in their country.

I DO believe they would have handed him over to avoid a U.S. occupation. They were happy to assassinate Ahmad Shah Massoud (leaded of the Northern Alliance, the other major faction vying for national recognition on a global scale)....also to note...he was killed 9/9/2001.

Taliban is NOT Al Queda....no matter what Fox News says. I'm not saying they are a great group of people, but they sure as hell were not interested in the U.S. or having a reason to have us there.
______________________________________________________________________
"Oh, dark grin, he can't help, when he's happy looks insane, oh yeah"

I find the whole interview very informative....however, @ 1:35 - 2:01.

"After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn...the CIA and FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible", Bill Clinton


______________________________________________________________________
"Oh, dark grin, he can't help, when he's happy looks insane, oh yeah"

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: FSB

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: CATIA
Almost as funny when the Muslim Brotherhood claimed it is a "secular" party.

Yup

Talk is cheap. Let's see them show us they want peace

Talk IS cheap.

I say we take the first step and, oh, I don't know....get the fuck out of THEIR country!

That MIGHT be taken a serious step towards peace. Try as I might...I can't find ONE U.S. death related to the talabin BEFORE our occupation of the Middle East.

Al Queda wouldn't have been able to function as well as they did leading up to 9/11 without the safe haven that the Taliban provided. And they were unapologetic about it.

In fact, they are more significant than Al Queda. Groups like AQ are much more easily replaced than the Taliban are.

Yes.....because it is certainly hard to find a fundamentalist, war torn, country in the ME and Africa these days.

I mean if Pakistan and Iran aren't doing a good enough job, with an allegedly fully functioning government, at harboring and encouraging terrorists........you now have war torn Somalia, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan, Ethiopia.......to add to that list.

If you want former war torn countries, who are just a stones throw away from being reclaimed by another fundamentalist......look no further than Iraq or even Afghanistan after we have been there for a decade.

Yep, Afghanistan and the Taliban were rare........fortunately a decade worth of wars, revolution, and internal strife has turned most of the ME and surrounding areas into nothing more than oppressive Talibanesque sequels.

Originally posted by: FSB

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: FSB

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: CATIA
Almost as funny when the Muslim Brotherhood claimed it is a "secular" party.

Yup

Talk is cheap. Let's see them show us they want peace

Talk IS cheap.

I say we take the first step and, oh, I don't know....get the fuck out of THEIR country!

That MIGHT be taken a serious step towards peace. Try as I might...I can't find ONE U.S. death related to the talabin BEFORE our occupation of the Middle East.

Al Queda wouldn't have been able to function as well as they did leading up to 9/11 without the safe haven that the Taliban provided. And they were unapologetic about it.

In fact, they are more significant than Al Queda. Groups like AQ are much more easily replaced than the Taliban are.

Actually...according to "them" (new sources), the Taliban was willing to hand Bin Laden over to the U.S. on a couple of occasions. At first, and this is all pre-9/11, they want to have a multinational court to have a trial, but as the U.S. did not acknowledge the Taliban was a governing body, this of course, did not happen. Then the Taliban asked for "proof" to hand over Bin Laden. Hell, Clinton couldn't our own CIA to sign off that Bin Laden was responsible for the 1990 WTC attack, the embassy bombings, or the USS Cole.

The final blow to the Taliban was sealed with Mr. Bush who said, "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."

Yeah...that'll win the war.

They made their bed. I can't believe someone is trying to be an apologist for them only 10 years after.

Originally posted by: FSB
President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Just Bin Laden wasn't good enough. We did need to cripple AQ in Afghanistan. Defining the mission as anything else was silly.

Once the bombs started, discussing turning over Bin Laden was too late and should be considered nothing but a stall. They had chosen their fate by this time.

Originally posted by: Stryk
They made their bed. I can't believe someone is trying to be an apologist for them only 10 years after.

Apologist.......*scoff*.......cute.

Excuse me for poking bigger holes in your already fishnet looking justification.

Despite never addressing anything I actually say......I'll stick with that argument and add to it this:

Pakistan also made their bed......harboring OBL for the past few years in their military equivalent of West Point, not to mention the Al Queda harboring they still do in tribal regions, yet we are not at war with them......and are still paying those goofy bastards foreign aid money.

How about Saudi Arabia........

Direct connection between SA and 911 hijacker......by our very own FBI records.

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-10-03-FBI-penttbomb-bayoumi.pdf

We won't even get into how many of the hijackers were from this region, how much of the money for terrorism gets filtered through that country........or how we are not only not at war with them but are actually trading them 30 billion dollars of some of our most advanced military weapons.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203899504577128674022827702.html

Like I said.......keep dreaming the dream........because that is about the only place our illogical interventionist policy will ever make any actual sense.

It's an endless rabbit hole of outright lies, deception, and false premises that nobody in their conscious mind could ever possibly make heads or tails of (unless they were ignorant of other events, or were intentionally misleading themselves for an agenda).
Post edited by Mockery at 1/5/2012 5:48:49 AM

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: FSB

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: CATIA
Almost as funny when the Muslim Brotherhood claimed it is a "secular" party.

Yup

Talk is cheap. Let's see them show us they want peace

Talk IS cheap.

I say we take the first step and, oh, I don't know....get the fuck out of THEIR country!

That MIGHT be taken a serious step towards peace. Try as I might...I can't find ONE U.S. death related to the talabin BEFORE our occupation of the Middle East.

Al Queda wouldn't have been able to function as well as they did leading up to 9/11 without the safe haven that the Taliban provided. And they were unapologetic about it.

In fact, they are more significant than Al Queda. Groups like AQ are much more easily replaced than the Taliban are.

Yes.....because it is certainly hard to find a fundamentalist, war torn, country in the ME and Africa these days.

I mean if Pakistan and Iran aren't doing a good enough job, with an allegedly fully functioning government, at harboring and encouraging terrorists........you now have war torn Somalia, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan, Ethiopia.......to add to that list.

If you want former war torn countries, who are just a stones throw away from being reclaimed by another fundamentalist......look no further than Iraq or even Afghanistan after we have been there for a decade.

Yep, Afghanistan and the Taliban were rare........fortunately a decade worth of wars, revolution, and internal strife has turned most of the ME and surrounding areas into nothing more than oppressive Talibanesque sequels.

Pakistan did not allow AQ to function freely like the Taliban did in Afgahnistan.

Also how many wars were we involved in leading up to 1993 or 2001?

Originally posted by: Stryk
Pakistan did not allow AQ to function freely like the Taliban did in Afgahnistan.

More unmanned drone bombings, unsupported by Pakistan, much like the OBL raid, in Pakistan over the past two years than were dropped in the entire Kosovo War.

Others, however, see al-Qaeda as an integrated network that is strongly led from the Pakistani tribal areas and has a powerful strategic purpose. Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, said "It amazes me that people don't think there is a clear adversary out there, and that our adversary does not have a strategic approach."[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Also how many wars were we involved in leading up to 1993 or 2001?

Must be a trick question......

My first answer is none.......since Congress hasn't declared war in almost half a century.

Since I doubt that is the argument you are making......we have been involved in over six military interventionist "skirmishes" over that that time period.

Full list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

And, oddly enough, we have dropped more rouge bombs on Pakistan, again, without their consent, than we have in that decade of other military bullshit combined.

The only difference is that Pakistan, because they know better, hasn't declared war against us yet........that's why we still pay them money........despite bombing the shit out of them......and is why they can still pretend to hate us to appease their Islamic jihadists.

I guess this is the absurd argument that the Taliban should have taken.......sell out first.......let America do what it wants......then talk shit about them.

They apparently fucked up the order of operations.

Post edited by Mockery at 1/5/2012 5:59:53 AM

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Stryk
Pakistan did not allow AQ to function freely like the Taliban did in Afgahnistan.

More unmanned drone bombings, unsupported by Pakistan, much like the OBL raid, in Pakistan over the past two years than were dropped in the entire Kosovo War.

Others, however, see al-Qaeda as an integrated network that is strongly led from the Pakistani tribal areas and has a powerful strategic purpose. Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, said "It amazes me that people don't think there is a clear adversary out there, and that our adversary does not have a strategic approach."[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Also how many wars were we involved in leading up to 1993 or 2001?

Must be a trick question......

My first answer is none.......since Congress hasn't declared war in almost half a century.

Since I doubt that is the argument you are making......we have been involved in over six military interventionist "skirmishes" over that that time period.

Full list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

And, oddly enough, we have dropped more rouge bombs on Pakistan, again, without their consent, than we have in that decade of other military bullshit combined.

The only difference is that Pakistan, because they know better, hasn't declared war against us yet........that's why we still pay them money........despite bombing the shit out of them......and is why they can still pretend to hate us to appease their Islamic jihadists.

I guess this is the absurd argument that the Taliban should have taken.......sell out first.......let America do what it wants......then talk shit about them.

They apparently fucked up the order of operations.

Are you consciously trying to miss the point.

YOU were the one to mention wars. We were attacked twice without us having dropped a bomb either Iraq or Afghanistan.

You don't want to address that, it seems.

Originally posted by: Stryk
Are you consciously trying to miss the point.

YOU were the one to mention wars. We were attacked twice without us having dropped a bomb either Iraq or Afghanistan.

You don't want to address that, it seems.

Address what exactly? I didn't realize that I ever openly denied 9/11 happened.

Here I thought I was just poking holes at your argument for why we went to war with Afghanistan, but have failed to go to war with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or several dozen other countries for exactly the same reason.

Don't worry, I'd do the same if you supported the Libyan intervention, but not a Syrian intervention too.

The fact remains that we will actually pay oppressive, fundamentalist regimes, who openly hate us and speak poorly of us, so long as they either have oil they will sell us......or let us blast their country with bombs without military retaliation.

If only Iran would just take it like a dirty whore, let us bomb the hell out of them and would STFU about it.....the world would be so much easier.

Is this the point I'm over here missing?
Post edited by Mockery at 1/5/2012 6:46:42 AM

Just a few excerpts from the sources you posted.

The Guardian Source

In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US.

Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand anyone over".

Washington Post Source

State Department officials assert that despite hours of talks and proposals that were infuriatingly vague, the Afghan rulers never truly intended to give up bin Laden.

U.S. negotiators started out "very, very patient," one official said. But over the course of many meetings, the envoys "lost all patience with them because they kept saying they would do something and they did exactly nothing."

On Feb. 3, 1999, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Karl E. Inderfurth, the Clinton administration's point man for talks with the Taliban, and Michael Sheehan, State Department counterterrorism chief, went to Islamabad to deliver a stern message to the Taliban's deputy foreign minister, Abdul Jalil: The United States henceforth would hold the Taliban responsible for any terrorist act by bin Laden.

By that time, bin Laden had been indicted for his alleged role in the embassy bombings. The officials reviewed the indictment in detail with the Taliban and offered to provide more evidence if the Taliban sent a delegation to New York. The Taliban did not do so.

U.N. pressure steadily mounted. In October 1999, a Security Council resolution demanded the Taliban turn over bin Laden to "appropriate authorities" but left open the possibility he could be tried somewhere besides a U.S. court.

In response, the Taliban proposed bringing bin Laden to justice, either in Afghanistan or another Muslim country.

They never intended to hand him over to the United States or even the United Nations.

If they had known that the US would commit the kind of manpower and military hardware that it did, then I agree, they probably would have gladly handed him over, but that was beyond their imagination (and even ours at the time). Initially there was no intention to use large numbers of conventional forces in Afghanistan.

You're right, the Taliban and AQ are not the same thing. The Taliban just gave AQ a place to operate, recruit, train and plan in return for nice sums of cash to help them fight their war with the NA.

Edit: And as for the video. Whats the point? The USS Cole incident happened in October of 2000, two months before President Clinton left office. OBL was added to the FBI's most wanted list in 1999. President Clinton didn't need to pin the Cole incident on OBL to justify going after him - he was already taking military actions in 1998 to try and kill him.

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan

"The president said he ordered the strike against bin Laden and his compatriots because of compelling information they were planning additional terrorist attacks against our citizens and others with the inevitable collateral casualties and .. seeking to acquire chemical weapons and other dangerous weapons."

-August 20th, 1998

Post edited by Allen at 1/5/2012 11:09:03 AM

Originally posted by: Mockery
It's an endless rabbit hole of outright lies, deception, and false premises that nobody in their conscious mind could ever possibly make heads or tails of (unless they were ignorant of other events, or were intentionally misleading themselves for an agenda).

Holy fucking shit....well said.
______________________________________________________________________
"Oh, dark grin, he can't help, when he's happy looks insane, oh yeah"