15 questions for 9/11 "truthers"

159 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Trevormkidd wrote:

Fidel, I highly doubt that anyone on this board - myself, unionist and Tommy Paine included - is not open to the possibility that the public is being kept in the dark by the government.

I used to think that the worst aspect of 9/11 conspiracy-mania was the underlying racist and defeatist thesis that the U.S. is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - that no simply non-white amateurs could strike a blow against Fortress Amerika - that the U.S. could never be defeated, except by itself.

It's a thesis we've seen pervading some posters' "analysis" of the Afghan insurgency, indeed of all past successful insurgencies against U.S. rule (yes, the current one will succeed as well, sorry if that observation gives any U.S. power-worshippers a heart attack).

But now, I see there's another angle - the underestimation and failure to appreciate the criminality of U.S. imperialism.

For these "theorists", the daily murder, exploitation, and aggression committed by the U.S. isn't bad enough. It pales by comparison with the notion that the U.S. could actually attack its own people - "real" people, like you and me! Gosh!

This obsession is worthy of nothing but contempt. And no, trevor, I am not open to any of these bullshit insulting theories. When some fact, some evidence, comes along, I will pay attention - but not at the expense of dealing with the major problems facing the people of Canada and the world.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Trevormkidd wrote:

Fidel, I highly doubt that anyone on this board - myself, unionist and Tommy Paine included - is not open to the possibility that the public is being kept in the dark by the government.

I used to think that the worst aspect of 9/11 conspiracy-mania was the underlying racist and defeatist thesis that the U.S. is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - that no simply non-white amateurs could strike a blow against Fortress Amerika - that the U.S. could never be defeated, except by itself.

So I think what youre trying to suggest is that because the vicious empire has committed mass murder and genocides abroad since even before Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and masterminding NATO's "Gladio" terrorist operations in Europe for several decades, reconstructing Himmler's SS to spy on our WW II allies, torture, skull duggery etc,  it would be over the top for anyone to suggest they might be capable of scheming with key members of the Islamic wing of the CIA,"al Qa'eda", to murder 3000 of their own people in one day. But this is unconvincing and somewhat overly defensive of the vicious empire's notorious recent history.

This is a common theme which tends to be offered out of the blue in reference to nothing in particular. In fact, no one has argued that the CIA's Islamic operatives were incompetent when perpetrating terror on 9-11, 3-11 or several other acts of terrorism in Bosnia, Chechnya, Spain, Pakistan, India etc

Quote:
But now, I see there's another angle - the underestimation and failure to appreciate the criminality of U.S. imperialism.

For these "theorists", the daily murder, exploitation, and aggression committed by the U.S. isn't bad enough. It pales by comparison with the notion that the U.S. could actually attack its own people - "real" people, like you and me! Gosh!

And here's another acute angle which most North American citizens will never be made aware of:

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3422]How the FBI protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer[/url]Were our white cops in Vancouver working for Ottawa, Warshington, or were they like "that" with cousins of the Taliban, "al Qa'eda" directly? Or are our white cops just genetically predisposed to making bad decisions because of their whiteness, or rather, pinkness? snort-snerk. Is there an Elmer Fudd gene specific to white people and making us all vulnerable to deception theorists working for the plutocracy?

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

So I think what youre trying to suggest is that [...] it would be over the top for anyone to suggest they might be capable of scheming with key members of the Islamic wing of the CIA,"al Qa'eda", to murder 3000 of their own people in one day.

No, it's not "over the top" to "suggest" it. It's downright bizarre to keep on ranting on for years in the absence of any proof. And it tends to get combined with all the ideology I mentioned (U.S. all-powerful, everybody else is nothing; there is no "real" resistance to U.S. imperialism - only CIA-sponsored phoney resistance; the murder of several thousand U.S. citizens is worse than murder of hundreds of thousands abroad, etc.).

Sven Sven's picture

Unionist wrote:
And no, trevor, I am not open to any of these bullshit insulting theories. When some fact, some evidence, comes along, I will pay attention...

I think it boils down to this: For some, the mere "possibility" of a conspiracy is, by itself, "evidence" of a conspiracy.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Xengine

The hillariously ironic thing is that even the official account is a conspiracy theory.

And a lot of people swallow it, regardless of how ridiculous it is on its face.

But what the hell, it's 'official' and easy. Then they'll sit there and mutter about how ridiculous the heretics are. 

 

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Fidel wrote:

So I think what youre trying to suggest is that [...] it would be over the top for anyone to suggest they might be capable of scheming with key members of the Islamic wing of the CIA,"al Qa'eda", to murder 3000 of their own people in one day.

No, it's not "over the top" to "suggest" it. It's downright bizarre to keep on ranting on for years in the absence of any proof. And it tends to get combined with all the ideology I mentioned (U.S. all-powerful, everybody else is nothing; there is no "real" resistance to U.S. imperialism - only CIA-sponsored phoney resistance; the murder of several thousand U.S. citizens is worse than murder of hundreds of thousands abroad, etc.).

But at least some of those US and Canadian academics, independent news journalists etc have reported on those same US military atrocities, without whom those crimes might never have been made public. Like the Mai Lai Massacre, El Mozote, doctor and the madman's off the books bombing of Cambodia, support of Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge for 15 years, shadow government funding since Reagan, policies for exporting terrorism to Latin America and beyond, and in more recent times the renditions and return to secret torture bases around the world and general non-accountability to the US public.

Youre basically suggesting that because they are established mass murderers and human rights abusers throughout the cold war, they wouldnt stoop as low as to pull a false flag on American soil for some reason you may still be pondering yourself. And youre right, it doesnt matter all that much for leftist supporters around the world who realized decades ago what they are capable of. I think 9/11 truth would matter, however, for those dyed in the wool conservatives whove believed all along that neocons are focussed on national security and their best interests, and America's best interests. And then they may even begin to question the Liberal Democrats' motives and objectives, that other wing of the USSA's big business party who are there today to ensure continuity of Bush's neocon policies and revolving door access to Washington from Wall Street.

Xengine

It pans out like this:

There's the 'official' tale, full of inane contradictions, impossibilities, and holes.

Then there are a variety of unofficial tales out there that have the same problems.

It's almost like a mirror of the old 'how did we arrive here' tale. Some people think the Bible, full of ridiculous crap as it is holds the answers.

Other people pick other holy books, theories, or mystical tales, equally insane. 

Oh, sure. They can describe macro-processes and means, but what actually happened, that's all wild speculation. It's a question of understanding the mechanics that make quanta, and thus life, work.

Folks who don't know, sometimes they blame gods. Passing the buck has always worked, yes?

So now, we have an equally absurd situation. No one has any believable answers, but we know beyond doubt that there is an answer.

And knowing the 'quanta' of how the neocons operate, I have few doubts that there was blood on their hands, that day.

Prime scent for big things: who benefits? 

So, who benefitted?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unionist

The Bible says God split the Red Sea so the Israelites could cross in safety and the pursuing Egyptians could be wiped out.

That's the "official" story, anyway.

The story goes on to relate that of all the Israelites who left Egypt, only one (and it wasn't even Moses) lived to enter the Promised Land. The rest died wandering in the desert.

So who benefited?

Obviously, the dynastic Pharoahs. With the most rebellious section of the population handily dispatched out of the country (the Hebrew slaves with their Weapon of Mass Destruction, Yahweh), they were able to consolidate their power for centuries to come.

Yeah, I think you're starting to get my drift. The evidence is there, for those who aren't blinded by sheeplike devotion to the official media, that it was not the Almighty, but rather Ramses himself that rigged up the Ten Plagues, the Exodus, the Red Sea, and even the phoney Tablets on Mount Sinai - maybe right back to the Burning Bush, but more studies are needed.

What amazes me is not the pie-eyed devotees of the Biblical tale. It's those self-styled progressive people who don't even seem to care any more. "It's been years since the Exodus", they condescendingly whine, "why are some people still harping on and on about what 'really' happened? Let it go."

And so, one of the most diabolical yet successful coverups in history continues, now elevated to the status of religious revelation, the basis of three modern faiths.

For more information, visit http:\\scientistsforredseatruth.com.

 

Xengine

Interesting. Not very impressive.

I used a parallel concerning faith given from above, and you give me a fake website.

What ever floats your boat, man. Didn't help me much, though. 

 

 

 

Fidel

Because these are modern times, people generally expect legitimate enquiries as to exactly why a mass murder was carried out in the most fortified country in the world spending more on intelligence gathering every year than most countries spend on national health care

Xengine

I've yet to see any evidence that there ever were any Hebrews held in captivity in Egypt, outside of the Hebrew scripture that says there were.

9/11, on the other hand, obviously happened.

Have any more flashy analogies that don't fit? 

 

 

Xengine

I'm getting multiple postings. I was going to edit the above, but I was actually kind of not following what you were saying. 

Probably better left for tomorrow. I'll look at it again and reply if I can think of anything worthwhile to say about it.

Xengine

Ah yes. I read you.

No doubt, the Bush administration has some big things to hide. That's beyond question.

I think I'm tracking, now. 

Your oblique approach threw me for a loop, for a minute. My fault, not yours.

 

Unionist

Xengine wrote:

I used a parallel concerning faith given from above, and you give me a fake website.

Well of course I gave you a "fake" website.

It was in code.

You think I'm suicidal enough to post the actual site in full view here?

Sheesh.

Quote:
9/11, on the other hand, obviously happened.

Really. You're quite certain about that, are you? I've never seen evidence of that outside of media reports of that day. Do you have any independent evidence? Or do you think the most powerful intelligence-gathering and disinformation-peddling power on earth is utterly incapable of mounting a diversionary false-flag Gladio operation?

 

Xengine

In the context of 'happened' as in 'the WTC buildings are gone', ya.

I think that can be backed up in real time without reference to 2500 year old scribblings.

Exactly what 9/11 was, I can't say with any certainty. I know that it was a great excuse for some interests to do a lot of things, and that it was a great excuse for a lot of people to accept and enable those things.

Outside of that, no, I don't know what 9/11 actually was. And that's a cryin shame, yes? 

 

 

Xengine

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here, Fidel.

New poster, don't really know anyone, don't know what their backgrounds, knowledge, presumptions or biases are.

I try as best I can to find and deal with facts. That's harder and harder to do as time goes on. Identifying what a fact is and whether or not its even nearly a fact is a challenge, these days. Too many liars in control of the mass media. 

There's no evidence disclosed that OBL did it all, to my understanding, and Bush and company are proven liars. The official story reeks with holes that only people who need to believe and who are willing to accept big leaps of faith in defiance of logic would swallow, and no other theory has much more to offer.

That's where I sit with it, that's where I leave it. 

If I were to give my opinion at this moment, I'd say that at the very least, the Bush administration enabled the event.

Worst case scenario, they were actually behind it.

And why the hell not? They were behind killing 5k Americans and maybe a million civilians in Iraq.

Who benefits? Bushco sure did.

 

Fidel

Never mind, Xengine. People like Unionist already know who masterminded 9/11. And it wasnt the old gladio gang.

It was those people held at Gitmo for five years before confessing to the whole thing.

No need for a legit investigation when American inquisitors are on the job. It's slam dunk as far as US conservatives are concerned, and apparently for some other people, too.

Fidel

Xengine:

I think deception theorists tend to want to place the onus on truthers to explain what happened on 9/11. And it's usually because they think they know based on the very flimsy, the very lightweight, and the very slip-shod 9/11 commission report. And it's the same official report which at least two of the ten commission panelists themselves have tried to blow the whistle on and describing it as a coverup by the Pentagon, FAA, FBI, CIA and high ranking members of crazy George Bush's government.

[url=The">http://www.newsweek.com/id/189251][b][u][i]The 9/11 Commission and Torture[/url]  Newsweek

Quote:

Powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill are clamoring for creation of a bipartisan "9/11 style" commission to investigate the legality of the Bush administration's antiterrorism tactics—especially its use of harsh interrogation techniques.

President Obama has been notably cool to the idea. But the case for a "truth" commission was bolstered by the disclosure this month that the CIA had destroyed 92 videotapes of the interrogations and confinement of Al Qaeda suspects. A dozen showed the use of "enhanced" techniques routinely described by human-rights groups as torture. . .

The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda's history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it.

The panel raised no public protest over the CIA's interrogation methods, even though news reports at the time suggested how brutal those methods were. In fact, the commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.

That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission's final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain.

And yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission's report may have been subjected to "enhanced" interrogation techniques, or at least threatened with them, because of the 9/11 Commission.

While the CIA says it ended the use of waterboarding by early 2003, the agency continued to use other "enhanced" methods involving pain, sleep deprivation and extended isolation—all of which have been branded as torture. The CIA insists that its interrogation methods were legal and approved by the White House.

Research shows that people will say anything under threat of "torture",  and 9/11 commission report possibly "discredited"? Of course, this is all rather meaningless to the non-truthers

We'd best be careful though. Deception theorists are likely to brush this off, too, as merely\being reducable to our racist tendencies to want to believe that abducted and tortured suspects are not capable of telling the truth under torture. I think that at some point the non-truther's own logic and ability to reason might get the better of them. Their resolve in the meantime is quite impressive.

Xengine

It's pretty much a proven psychological fact that if you break someone's mind, and the methods used were based on Cameron's mind breaking techniques, that they'll be or say or remember what you want them to.

 

Caissa

Here's a thread that could have benefited from being closed 20 posts ago.Wink

Trevormkidd

Xengine wrote:

Prime scent for big things: who benefits? 

So, who benefitted?

As Chomsky said, using that ridiculous logic almost every government in the world must be responsible, because most governments in power are going to be able to use an event like 9/11 to their advantage.

By the same logic the US government can't be at all responsible for what happened after Katrina because the government did not benefit.  Some people might say that the government is at least partly responsible for not taking the warnings of scientists about the dangers of a major hurricane, and completely responsible for the poor response, but that doesn't pass your smell test (The Democrats must have either caused Katrina, or caused the poor response).  And the Nazi's, of course, can't be the cause of WWII because they didn't benefit either.  The BQ must be the cause of Harper announcing art funding cuts which caused the BQ to gain support in Quebec, and the Conservatives to lose support.

The argument from final consequences is a logical fallacy (No surprise, as the 9/11 truth movement manages to commit about 15 of the top 20 logical fallacies).  Arguing that effect (the Bush administration gaining from an event) is the responsible for the cause (9/11) is backwards and absurd.  How about arguing from evidence?  Now I know that Fidel complains that we are requiring conspiracy theorists to provide evidence.  Damn right.  Claims require evidence.  If you are claiming that 9/11 was an inside job then provide evidence.  So far none. 

Xengine - seeing as the Bush administration must be responsible for 9/11 because they used the attacks to push through their neocon agenda.  What would have been the response of the Bush administration if they had really been attacked by 19 hijackers along the lines of the "official story"?? 

Would they have taken advantage of the tragedy to attempt to push forward their neocon agenda?  Would they have covered the world in teddy bears?  Would they have resigned in disgrace?  Would they have tried to cover up the obvious incompetence that must have occured at many levels of government, intelligence, FAA etc to have allowed such a thing to happen?

Fidel

Trevormkidd wrote:
Xengine wrote:

Prime scent for big things: who benefits? 

So, who benefitted?

As Chomsky said, using that ridiculous logic almost every government in the world must be responsible, because most governments in power are going to be able to use an event like 9/11 to their advantage.

But several governments' intel agencies, from Israelis to Russians, actually warned US neocons several times of impending "al Qa'eda" attacks. And they were having none of it.

Quote:
By the same logic the US government can't be at all responsible for what happened after Katrina because the government did not benefit.

But your's is neocon-friendly logic. The US is a corporate oriented plutocracy. They used the opportunity of natural disaster to privatize public schools in New Orleans. This fits with the neocons' political agenda for neoliberalizing economy.

Quote:
Some people might say that the government is at least partly responsible for not taking the warnings of scientists about the dangers of a major hurricane, and completely responsible for the poor response, but that doesn't pass your smell test

This is more neocon doublespeak. Katrina actually did lead to the electoral demise of the neocons. US conservative party supporters tend to want to believe that political conservatives have their best interests in mind always. When they realized the neocons dont give a shit about ordinary Americans in general, like the 9/11 emergency workers and heroes who ended up seeking health care in Cuba, the neocons dropped a peg or two in the eyes of so many Republican Party supporters.

But like too many Canadians, some Americans, too, are incapable of sympathy or empathy for "brown people" living far away and on the receiving end of US and NATO sponsored terrorism. They would be the last ones to believe their own government is exporting terror.

 

Quote:
(The Democrats must have either caused Katrina, or caused the poor response).  And the Nazi's, of course, can't be the cause of WWII because they didn't benefit either.  The BQ must be the cause of Harper announcing art funding cuts which caused the BQ to gain support in Quebec, and the Conservatives to lose support.

More neocon bafflegab.

Hitler and the Nazis had lots of help, from Hitler's initial election campaign funding to the building of a corporate sponsored war machine.

And the rest of your examples make little sense, as does the rest of you post. But that doesnt seem to matter to most non-truthers and neocon supporters alike. Un-truthers tend to create their own reality and rely on few sources when attempting to do so. Anything but place blame where it lies.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:
Trevormkidd wrote:
By the same logic the US government can't be at all responsible for what happened after Katrina because the government did not benefit.

But your's is neocon-friendly logic. The US is a corporate oriented plutocracy. They used the opportunity of natural disaster to privatize public schools in New Orleans. This fits with the neocons' political agenda for neoliberalizing economy.

See,  Trevormkidd? The neo-cons did benefit from Katrina, so they probably organized it. Get with the program.

 

Fidel

Unionist, I realize you dont appreciate us posting links to what the brown people have to say about recent history of their own countries and things in general.

Unionist wants to believe the neocon fairy tale of events surrounding 9/11. And that's his personal right, and I will always-always defend his personal right to be a neocon groupee living in Canada, if he feels it's necessary.

I suppose that, like unionist, I have nothing more to say.

Trevormkidd

Fidel wrote:
But several governments' intel agencies, from Israelis to Russians, actually warned US neocons several times of impending "al Qa'eda" attacks. And they were having none of it.

Yes, which of course means that the neocons orchestrated the attacks.  Couldn't be that they were arrogant, incompetent or stupid.  Or that the President was more interested in enjoying his summer than, worrying about what he felt were threats that weretoo vague to put much time and resources into it. 

Quote:
But your's is neocon-friendly logic. The US is a corporate oriented plutocracy. They used the opportunity of natural disaster to privatize public schools in New Orleans. This fits with the neocons' political agenda for neoliberalizing economy.

Holy shit!  So it is possible for a natural disaster to have a cause other than the Bush administration, and it was possible for that neocon administration to take advantage of a natural tragedy that they did not cause.  So is it only human caused tragedies that can only be caused by the US government? 

Quote:
And the rest of your examples make little sense, as does the rest of you post. But that doesnt seem to matter to most non-truthers and neocon supporters alike. Un-truthers tend to create their own reality and rely on few sources when attempting to do so. Anything but place blame where it lies.

I prefer to be called an "anti-truther."  But perhaps you can explain Fidel under what conditions it would be possible for a 9/11 type attack to occur on US soil and not be an inside job?  Is it possible for foreign religious terrorists to commit an act of terror against the US without the help of the US government?  Seeing as zero evidence is required to confirm that 9/11 was an inside job.  How would the US respond to an attack against them which they did not perpetrate themselves?  Would a neocon government use such an attack to to their advantage and further their agenda?   In an imaginary world where such an attack could happen would the US government, intelligence agencies, FAA etc admit to their incompetency and mistakes or try to hide them?

Trevormkidd

Unionist wrote:

See,  Trevormkidd? The neo-cons did benefit from Katrina, so they probably organized it. Get with the program.

I'm convinced.  Now starting an Katrina Truth movement.  Katrina was actually not a real hurricane, but caused by the US detonating a nuclear bomb in the gulf, and then they detonated the levies.  The fact that I have zero evidence is actually proof that all of that is true. 

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Unionist, I realize you dont appreciate us posting links to what the brown people have to say about recent history of their own countries and things in general.

I have told you many times, Fidel, that I don't personally attack you. When your logic starts to fail, you get really upset and say this kind of stuff. I won't change my policy, because we're still on the same side of the trenches, no matter how hard you try to find enemies here.

Quote:
Unionist wants to believe the neocon fairy tale of events surrounding 9/11. And that's his personal right, and I will always-always defend his personal right to be a neocon groupee living in Canada, if he feels it's necessary.

Likewise, Fidel. It's sad. Think about what you say about people. Let loose on their ideas all you want.

Unionist

Trevormkidd wrote:
Unionist wrote:

See,  Trevormkidd? The neo-cons did benefit from Katrina, so they probably organized it. Get with the program.

I'm convinced.  Now starting an Katrina Truth movement.  Katrina was actually not a real hurricane, but caused by the US detonating a nuclear bomb in the gulf, and then they detonated the levies.  The fact that I have zero evidence is actually proof that all of that is true. 

Yes! They destroyed all the evidence! You rock! Where do I sign up!?

 

Fidel

Trevormkidd wrote:

Fidel wrote:
But several governments' intel agencies, from Israelis to Russians, actually warned US neocons several times of impending "al Qa'eda" attacks. And they were having none of it.

Yes, which of course means that the neocons orchestrated the attacks.  Couldn't be that they were arrogant, incompetent or stupid.  Or that the President was more interested in enjoying his summer than, worrying about what he felt were threats that weretoo vague to put much time and resources into it.

Excuses-excuses. And we've replied to this nonsense before that the neocons and rightwing conservatives, from McKinley to Truman and Eisenhower, doctor and the madman, Lon Cheney jr  and dubya have merely had an incredibly long and bad string of luck with the CIA having tricked them into waging immoral wars for resource grabs and warfiteering at US taxpayer's expense. Sorry, this is neither convincing nor even relevant to what youre trying to say.

As Naomi Klein and other leftists have said, it's time to consider that these serial mistakes are actually not mistakes at all. Only a fool would believe that the crooks and liars and crooked-liars have no personal interests or owe warfiteers any political favours once propped up in power by the plutocracy.

Quote:
Holy shit!  So it is possible for a natural disaster to have a cause other than the Bush administration, and it was possible for that neocon administration to take advantage of a natural tragedy that they did not cause.  So is it only human caused tragedies that can only be caused by the US government?

And the neoliberalized neocon agenda continues with taking full advantage of this neoliberal policy-induced disaster of financial capitalism. Wall Street banks have lost as much money in the last two years as they claimed to have made in the last 25 years. And unlike the S&L bailouts costing US taxpayers $30 billion a year for 30 years, this one's gonna leave some bruises.

[url=Gladio">http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8001][b... - Death Plan For Democracy[/url]

Quote:
In Afghanistan, the CIA armed, trained and supported Islamic "Gladios" who carried-out Brzezenski's plans for staging terrorist attacks upon popular local Afghan tribal leaders, as a means to instigate the widespread tribal warfare which eventually lured the Soviets to intervene in December 1979.  (July 3, 1979, President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.)  Reagan whole-heartedly supported the new terror politics as a weapon for attacking the Soviet empire, even expanding the Islamic militant form of Gladio to all member states of the Soviet Union and their allies, when he signed National Security Decision Directive 166 in March 1985.   In Central America, his Gladio-like duplication trained paramilitary armies and death squads.  This policy became known as the "El Salvador option," when George W. Bush embraced it in Iraq, making it the centerpiece of his strategy for the "war on terrorism." 

[url=Daniele">http://www.scribd.com/doc/294202/Daniele-Ganser-NATOs-Secret-Armies-Oper... Ganser - NATO's Secret Armies (Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe)[/url]

Trevormkidd

Fidel wrote:
Excuses-excuses. And we've replied to this nonsense before that the neocons and rightwing conservatives, from McKinley to Truman and Eisenhower, doctor and the madman, Lon Cheney jr  and dubya have merely had an incredibly long and bad string of luck with the CIA having tricked them into waging immoral wars for resource grabs and warfiteering at US taxpayer's expense. Sorry, this is neither convincing nor even relevant to what youre trying to say.

Are you saying that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is immoral because the US perpetrated 9/11?  Some of us believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are immoral, period.   

Quote:
As Naomi Klein and other leftists have said, it's time to consider that these serial mistakes are actually not mistakes at all. Only a fool would believe that the crooks and liars and crooked-liars have no personal interests or owe warfiteers any political favours once propped up in power by the plutocracy.

Are you saying that Naomi Klein believes 9/11 was an inside job?  Or is it possible that she believes that about the neocons, despite not thinking that they orchestrated 9/11?

Quote:
 [url=Gladio">http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8001][b... - Death Plan For Democracy[/url]

Just for future reference I ignore any link to globalresearch.ca.  Not because of their position on 9/11 but on other subjects they have lied pathologically.  I place them on a level playing field with creationists.   

Quote:
In Afghanistan, the CIA armed, trained and supported Islamic "Gladios" who carried-out Brzezenski's plans for staging terrorist attacks upon popular local Afghan tribal leaders, as a means to instigate the widespread tribal warfare which eventually lured the Soviets to intervene in December 1979.  (July 3, 1979, President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.)  Reagan whole-heartedly supported the new terror politics as a weapon for attacking the Soviet empire, even expanding the Islamic militant form of Gladio to all member states of the Soviet Union and their allies, when he signed National Security Decision Directive 166 in March 1985.   In Central America, his Gladio-like duplication trained paramilitary armies and death squads.  This policy became known as the "El Salvador option," when George W. Bush embraced it in Iraq, making it the centerpiece of his strategy for the "war on terrorism." 

[url=Daniele">http://www.scribd.com/doc/294202/Daniele-Ganser-NATOs-Secret-Armies-Oper... Ganser - NATO's Secret Armies (Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe)[/url]

I know the US had lots of connections with terrorists in Afghanistan.  Any possibility of those "chickens coming home to roost" as the saying goes?  Or are those terrorists incapable of doing anything without the hand holding of the US government, intellifence agencies, FAA etc.  I think they are capable. 

Trevormkidd

Unionist wrote:
Yes! They destroyed all the evidence! You rock! Where do I sign up!?

Remember, we are just asking questions.  Like about the obviousness of nuclear bomb being exploded in the gulf.  The official story just has way too many holes in it.  The neocons benefitted from "Katrina" afterall, so that should be enough.  Think about it, despite levies and scientists who are supposed to know about hurricanes, government supporters will still try to tell you that somehow an actual hurricane caused that damage.   

Unionist

Fidel, give it up. We've solved the mystery. The WTC was brought down by a Pakistan-ISI-CIA-funded hurricane. Its afterbreezes laid low the Louisiana levees. Occam's Razor - why go with two delusional explanations where one will do?

Fidel

So at this point, the truthers have far more questions than neocon groupees can handle.

Apparently a legit investigation and "9/11 truth commission" is on order, if we follow the Newsweek article.

But for some reason I think the non-truthers will continue to be satisfied with crazy George Bush's and that gvoernment's controversial account of what happened. Afterall, our floor-crossing stooges in Ottawa trust and obey the American inquisition, and so they fall in line, too.

And besides, it's the truthers who nurture racist thoughts for disbelieving that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and latest brown-skinned patsies of the American inquisition are incapable of telling the truth under torture. It goes without saying, or so much as a legit investigation. The non-truthers' logic and resolve to march to someone else's drum beat is quite impressive.

Fidel

I'd believe Unionist and crazy George Bush's version of events, if it wasnt for the evidence obtained from brown people under extreme duress of torture and basic human rights violations which tend to discredit his version of things and the warfiteering neocons all. Give it up yourself.

Xengine

I see. So, looking to the beneficiaries of the proceeds of crime for possible guilt is 'ridiculous logic', is it?

I'd say that the above assertion is 'ridiculous logic'.

And then to attempt to apply it to a natural disaster, caused by meteorological conditions?

Sloppy, at best.

The world isn't run by nations anymore, Mr. Beale. That was a quaint old idea, but now it's gone. 

And when it comes to mangling logic, I've never seen any performance like the performance of the neocons. 

Tell me about those WMD. I'm sure Curveball has the goods. 

 

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
And then to attempt to apply it to a natural disaster, caused by meteorological conditions?

Ah yes.  The effectively random and unpredictable interactions of warm and cold air masses miles in the sky that just somehow managed to do exactly what might benefit G.W. Bush the most.

Glad to see you so eager to swallow the "official" explanation.

You need to educate yourself.  I suggest that you track down and watch "Loose Rain".  It's currently on version 6.0, so be sure you get the latest.  Truth is constantly changing.

Xengine

Why should I spend my time doing that?

Educate your own damned self. I'll worry about my education, thanks very much.

Fidel

The lunatic rightwing fringe tend to come out of the woodwork for these threads. You kinda have to learn to brace yourself for the maelstrom of quirky logic and non-sequiturs, talking past truthers etc. And there is a noticable absence of a willingness to link to whacko conservative web sites to back themselves up if even a little. Too funny.

Fidel

Trevormkidd wrote:
I know the US had lots of connections with terrorists in Afghanistan.  Any possibility of those "chickens coming home to roost" as the saying goes?  Or are those terrorists incapable of doing anything without the hand holding of the US government, intellifence agencies, FAA etc.  I think they are capable. 

Yes, this amounts to plausible deniability for the USSA's cosmetic leadership. whichever of the two parties of the rich and powerful happen to have won the last stooge-off by a nose for the corporatocracy and Wall St.  

And it basically says to the world, ~"Yes we aided and abetted "al Qa'eda", and Osama bin Laden and religious whackos were definitely on the CIA-ISI payroll during the CIA-Saudi's holy old jihad against secular socialist thought in 1980s to about 1992 Central Asia. But we severed all covert ties to CIA's database of expendible jihadi assets after 1992!! 

"9/11 is blowback!!", they say. "You must believe us!!!"

And the gullible and self-confused do believe them. It's what they do. Conservatives tend to search for reasons to believe neocons maintain an ounce of credibility. Trust and obey, it's the only way.

thorin_bane

So does the ignorant left wing fringe fidel. I left a while ago because I got tired of argueing with people. I don't say they are crazy for believing the bull that is the "official" report. But they say you are if you don't. Or a racist. That is what put me over the top. I won't stand to be in a thread where I am called racist because I don't believe the "official" report from the USA. This should have been closed because of all the BAITING which is a nono in the policy. Because that is all it ever was. No one wanted questions answered it is nothing but a BAITING thread, so thank you one and all for showing up to the "i need answers thread" which was code for BAITING thread. Unionist are you done your master baiting here, esp after coming in after the thead had died down. Good fucking job. Don't agree GTFO is your opinion.

Fidel

Thorin_Bane wrote:
I don't say they are crazy for believing the bull that is the "official" report. But they say you are if you don't. Or a racist. That is what put me over the top. I won't stand to be in a thread where I am called racist because I don't believe the "official" report from the USA.
 

Truthers have out-debated and out-classed non-truthers and closet neocon supporters in every one of these threads by what I can tell.

And when they resort to name-calling and accusations of racism, remember it is they who believe KSM and "brown people" were telling the truth to their white torturers at Gitmo naval gulag for gross human rights violations, and what basically amounts to an American inquisition.

And like the Spanish inquisition, truth matters not to the inquisitors because guilt is assigned randomly and often, and guilt goes without saying or a fair trial.

Everyone is supposed to be afraid of the inquisition - the inquisition itself is about terrorizing the peons into subserviance  and loyal obedience. How much more biased toward white-centric deception theory can they possibly be? All of them and their white conservative shepherds  havent a leg to stand on, and so they out with complete non-sequiturs about racism in feeble attempts to stop people from using their grey matter. Resist non-truthers' attempts to drag you down to their level in order that they may beat you with experience.

Unionist

thorin_bane wrote:
Unionist are you done your master baiting here, esp after coming in after the thead had died down. Good fucking job. Don't agree GTFO is your opinion.

I'm sorry, thorin, but I can't recall ever once addressing a nasty personal comment in your direction. If you have a problem with me heaping ridicule on nonsensical conspiratorial theories, that's your right. If you don't like being called a racist and anti-semite (can't recall who did that or when), that's great too, but I'm quite sure I never called you those things. Several people on this thread get unbelievably emotional, outraged, you can almost feel them trembling with fury, when their conspiracy theories are questioned. Do you think that's altogether healthy?

You want to see namecalling? Read Fidel's wild-eyed posts about me, where his deepest wish is that I should be roped in to responding. For that matter, read your comments about me. And have a good long reflection about what the hell you are doing.

 

Fidel

Dont take the bait, Thorin. For non-truthers, it's mostly about invective and derogatory-lite descriptives directed at us as individual posters - zingers like: "nonsense",  "unbelievable", "outrageous" and "ridiculous" And really, they are describing the American inquisition.

[url=9/11">http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10144][... and the "American Inquisition"[/url]

Quote:

The legitimacy of the inquisition is not questioned. The "Global War on Terrorism" justifies a mammoth defense budget at the expense of health, education, and virtually every single category of (civilian) public expenditure. . .

In 1232, Pope Gregory IX set up a system of special religious courts called the inquisition. The Dominican friars were sent out to find and question heretics: 

"Heresy cannot be destroyed unless heretics are destroyed and ... their defenders and [supporters] are destroyed, and this is effected in two ways: ... they are converted to the true catholic faith, or ... burned. (Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, p. 535, 1887)...

Washington does not silence its antiwar critics. Quite the opposite. The inquisitorial social order allows certain forms of dissent. It is politically correct under a "democracy" to condemn US foreign policy in the strongest terms. 

What is not allowed is to question the inquisition. . .

9/11 is the cornerstone of the American Inquisition. 

The lies underlying 9/11 are accepted by the mainstream antiwar movement.

And Steve "I, too, was a lap poodle in Ottawa for crazy George Bush" Harper is promising to spend a whopping $490 billion over the next 20 years to beef up Pentagon du Nord. That is insane, and that is outrageous, and that is totally ridiculous.

Trevormkidd

Xengine wrote:
I see. So, looking to the beneficiaries of the proceeds of crime for possible guilt is 'ridiculous logic', is it?

Not at all.  It is not illogical for someone who benefitted from a crime to have committed it.  However, and here is the logical fallacy, benefitting from a crime does not mean that the beneficiaries are guilty of said crime.  Before the legal system will accuse someone of guilt they will........find evidence.  Before they can convict someone of guilt they have to prove their evidence.  It is a little shocking to need to explain this on progressive board.  Imagine a situation where law enforcement looks to see who benefitted from a crime (nothing wrong with that), but then instead of gathering evidence to assess whether the beneficiary is a guilty party, just labels them guilty, only searches for evidence for confirms their conclusion, dismisses all the evidence that doesn’t confirm their conclusion, twists evidence to support their conclusion, and continues to promote evidence which has been shown to be false.  I would say that would about the worst legal system imaginable.  But “truthers” apparently think that is a common sense way to approach a crime.

Quote:
Tell me about those WMD. I'm sure Curveball has the goods. 

There is nothing to tell.  There were none.  That is actually something that is damaging to the truther's position, not mine.  Your position is that the US government pulled off the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world without a flaw.  Then over the next couple years shows that it is the most incompetent government in the history of world.  Supplies no link to Iraq in a conspiracy of their own making, and then doesn't even bother to something as simple as plant WMDs in Iraq.  If you can believe that, then you can believe anything.

Fidel

Trevormkidd wrote:
It is not illogical for someone who benefitted from a crime to have committed it.  However, and here is the logical fallacy, benefitting from a crime does not mean that the beneficiaries are guilty of said crime.

It's plausible but not likely. With any murder investiagtion, personal profit as a motive is always top of the list of motives. Youre talking about a country of which the economy is based on war - half a trillion taxpayer dollars per year on average to the military-industrial complex, and exploiting their incestuous relationship with lobbying the Pentagon and Congress. Four more wars!! It matters not who wins, just that there is war and plenty of warfiteering. Profit margins for more than 8,000 US military contractors sometimes exceeds 1000 percent. For capitalists anything above 12% is worth capitalizing on, and plastic widget economy doesnt cut the grey poupon as much as warfiteering, global weapons dealing, oil/gas, and trafficking in illicit drugs.

There were two allaeged objectives for the neocons in Middle East and Central Asia:

1. to eliminate non-existent WMD in Iraq, and

2. eliminate the head of the CIA's Islamic gladio operations, Osama bin Laden

So far, neither of those objectives are realized, and it's because:

A. NeoCons are prolific liars

B NeoCon supporters are incredibly naive

C. Neocons and Liberal democrats alike(Liberals and Tories are their mirror image colonial administrators in Ottawa)are merely corporate hirelings bought and paid for by the North American plutocracy.

Xengine

"It is not illogical for someone who benefitted from a crime to have committed it.  However, and here is the logical fallacy, benefitting from a crime does not mean that the beneficiaries are guilty of said crime.  Before the legal system will accuse someone of guilt they will........find evidence"

 

This has to be the highlight of the thread. Because the fact is, that there is not any public evidence that OBL was behind what happened on 9/11. If you have some, please present it. The Bush administration never did.

 

Let's go on to the next ridiculous thing that you say:

 

"Your position is that the US government pulled off the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world without a flaw.  Then over the next couple years shows that it is the most incompetent government in the history of world."

I think you know what a strawman is, and you just built one.

The 9/11 conspiracy, the official one, is full of flaws. Big, stupid flaws. So you'll be retracting that.

Then, I don't consider Iraq and Curveball to be a matter of stupidity and incompetence, but of lying. Nice cookie cutter wankerage there, but no. You'll be retracting that statement, too. 

 

 

Xengine

Quote:
C. Neocons and Liberal democrats alike(Liberals and Tories are their mirror image colonial administrators in Ottawa)are merely corporate hirelings bought and paid for by the North American plutocracy.

I'd propose, mate, that it's not even a North American plutocracy. There are North Americans involved, sure. But this stuff is worldwide and without borders.

I read a claim recently that Trotsky was living in New Jersey on Standard oil property. Then he was given the task of delivering money to revolutionaries in Russia. American and British banks were the financiers.

So he went up through Canada to do this, and was detained because the Canadians, rightly, thought that stirring up trouble in Russia might cause them to drop off of the eastern front.

But after some wrangling, wherein Woodrow Wilson even got involved, he and his wealth were sent on their way. The rest is history.

Then later, when Stalin popped up and jerked up the mix, it was time to finance the rise of Hitler. Until he, too, got out of control. Then it was time to put him and Nazi Germany down.

These people make money off of tension and conflict and war and fear. In bunches. But they also get power from it that money absolutely cannot buy.

And they are international. They are the globalist corporate community and their bankers.

Kudos to you, btw, for holding steady in a thread that seemed to be little more than neocon trolling.

I think I'll bow out of it now. But it was fun.

 

"War is a racket" - Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

Fidel

Xengine wrote:

Then later, when Stalin popped up and jerked up the mix, it was time to finance the rise of Hitler. Until he, too, got out of control. Then it was time to put him and Nazi Germany down.

These people make money off of tension and conflict and war and fear. In bunches. But they also get power from it that money absolutely cannot buy.

I have an older friend whose father was a bodyguard for a very high-ranking Nazi during the war. She told us that Hitler gave two kinds of speeches, 1. the open air squawking oratories for the benefit of Germans pissed off at the whole situation, and 2. the toned down version infront of Germany's industrial and banking elite given in private gatherings

I think the plan was war of annihilation against Soviet communism in Russia. Lebensraum was on the agenda then as it is today for marauding multinationals. This latest version of crises oriented capitalism is really a rehash of the 1920's model- and this one, theyve discovered too late, is a pile of shit, too.

Quote:
"War is a racket" - Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

It's what they do.

jas

Unionist wrote:

I don't blame you for feeling angry. It can be infuriating when people just won't listen to reason.

Totally agree. A 110-story skyscraper built to withstand impact from a jetliner pancakes into rubble and acres and acres of dust after less than 1 hour of burning - the first ever to collapse like that from fire in the history of modern building engineering. The second one collapses in under two hours. The third one collapses in exactly the same manner for no apparent reason except that the owner told the firefighters to "pull" it. Some people here consider these to be credible facts. There are no words for this. 

Fidel wrote:
as Canadian Naomi Klein and others have said, it's time to consider that serial mistakes and colossal blunders are not mistakes at all.

 

Caissa

Is 150 posts a Babble record?

Pages

Topic locked