I just wanted to say that tonight you expressed some views that you really do not match a journalistic approach of impartiallity but border extremism
let me outline
1... you claim the us staged 9/11
2... you claim bin laden and iraq are one and the same
3... you claim conspiracies about 9/11
4... you endorsed the idea because of someones views paps is losing it
5... you say turkey was right to invade, and not just to uphold the constitution
there are more but i couldn't be bother going through your ramblings to outline them
now let me ask you this?
is this the approach of a professional jurno? to spread stories with out any shread of evidence?
can you please explain yourself?
the evidence regarding 9/11 are very weak mate. just for selling stories to the misinformed. because if the us wanted to invade iraq or agfanistan they could have come with better scenarios than blowing up the twin towers and used it as an excuse.
now the reason the us invaded iraq was for the oil and they only did after blix told them they have nothing to fear, i say nothing to fear because blix reported to the un what iraq had and didn't have. if they had wmd do you think they would have invaded? no. and this is the reason they won't invade iran coz they don't know what to expect. there is no more blix to tell them shit.