Are you this stupid?

[Shibby]

I look at it like this. There are world changing wars going on right now. Whether it is politicaly or militarily, the world is devided. Maybe it's not all out choas yet, but the world is at war.

[babyblues]

Believe what you want!

That's just the point....I don't. You can't just decide what you believe and then bend the facts around it, if indeed they can be called facts. It doesn't seem to matter what he does, people are bound and determined to believe that Bush is an idiot. That much is obvious. Your belief or non-belief doesn't change reality. I'll stick to reality.

[blm]

Your belief or non-belief doesn't change reality. I'll stick to reality.

The fact and reality is that they cannot provide answers to a large majority of the publics questions and/or the family's questions pertaining to 9/11.

[babyblues]

The fact and reality is that they cannot provide answers to a large majority of the publics questions and/or the family's questions pertaining to 9/11.

Not hearing the answers that they want. It doesn't matter what the answer is, they're already predetermined to be unsatisfied with it. I'm not arguing against your opinion specifically, just the whole anti-Bush sentiment that seems to be the popular thing today.

Declaring that the Bush administration is on a path of terrorism is ludicrous. We dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, killing over 200,000 innocent civilians. The theory was that the bombings ended a war that would have taken millions of innocent lives had the invasion of Japan proceeded. Now, I'm not going to compare Bush to Truman, who is considered one of the top ten presidents, but Truman also involved the US in the Korean disaster of a war, was accused of being soft on Communism and was accused of corruption in his administration. Can you imagine the shit storm if Bush decided to just destroy a couple of cities in Iraq in a show of power to force the surrender of all Saddam loyalists? Holy fuck, I shudder to think of what you'd call him then. And our war in the middle east hasn't exactly been a disaster either. Our campaign in Afghanistan saw the defeat of Al-Qaeda rule and our campaign in Iraq has seen the capture of Saddam Hussein and the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Hardly fruitless and ineffective.

[Primal Instinct]

Bullshit....the Clinton administration had it's chance to clean this mess up but he was too busy gettin his johnson waxed by his fugly intern. I don't understand why people are so quick to blame all of this on our current administration. Let's not forget that there were attempts to blow up the trade center before during Clinton's admin, but he did NOTHING. And then Iraq actually invaded another country during Clinton's administration, and all we did was go in and restrain Israel from kickin the shit out of the Iraqis. Do I completely agree with everything that this administration has done? No. But I'm not about to believe the propoganda pushed by our dear friends, the extreme leftist liberal wackos, who are more concerned with smearing our current administration than coming up with a better answer.

Iraq invaded Kuwait during Bush Sr's presidential term, not Clinton's term. I also do not agree with your statement about doing nothing after the first WTC truck bomb attack in 1993. There were people caught and prosecuted, one of which was Ramzi Yousef. As for Al Qaeda not being dealt with, you must understand that until about 1996-97 there was no formal terrorist group known as Al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden. After much in-depth investigation it was later determined that OBL was a co-founder of what we now call Al Qaeda but up until then, he was thought to be a shadowy terrorist financeer but proof was not fully substantiated at that point. Hindsight is 20/20 but the reality of the situation is that the FBI and the Justice Department along with DOD intelligence WERE working on terrorist groups and activities related to Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. As we were (and for the most part, still are) a nation based upon law, we couldn't just start invading sovereign nations in which terrorist groups may or may not be residing within. Using that type of criteria, the US would be invading most sovereign nations in the northern hemisphere, INCLUDING our own country. Domestic terrorists are also a valid threat to public safety and security.


There is nothing wrong in seeking the truth about 9/11. The survivor families and the rest of the nation deserve to know what ACTUALLY happened on that day and the events leading up to the attacks. We are talking about a mass homicide of almost 3,000 people on domestic US soil. If that doesn't warrant a true transparent and independent investigation, I don't what does. The very fact that this administration vehemently resisted to even consider an investigation into such a serious matter for over a year after the attacks should raise some serious red flags.


Just consider this thought: If those aircraft were hijacked and crashed by terrorists from anywhere else besides the middle east or if the supposed hijackers were of a race/ethnicity other than middle eastern do you really think that the invasion of Afghanistan (the springboard to Iraq) and then Iraq could ever have happened? It is doubtful. You see, the attackers HAD to be middle eastern so that would justify a US invasion and nationbuilding efforts there to make the middle east a democracy using gunbarrel diplomacy. Terrorists from say, Africa, Russia, Chechnya or south America simply wouldn't do. How could an average US citizen zombified by the evening news ever make the connection to allow an invasion of Iraq when the terrorists were from a different hemisphere?


There are no coincidences when it comes to geopolitics. Everything is craftily assembled to reach a predetermined conclusion, which is usually reverse engineered to ensure a semi-believeable sequence of events leading up to an inevitable military invasion, occupation of the defeated and the pilfering of the natural resources of a targeted nation.



Seriously, would any of us on this board REALLY allow four or five terrorists with fucking boxcutters to take over and hold a commercial aircraft much less allow them to crash it into buildings? I know that I certainly wouldn't even if it was just me against all of them. Hell, you could disarm a terrorist with a boxcutter using a carry on bag or a frigging laptop computer. Couple that with a rush towards the front of the aircraft with even an equal number of passengers and it is highly unlikely that what we were told happened on those jets actually happened. Add in the fact that these known hijacked aircraft were not intercepted by USAF fighter patrols and the amount of time that these planes were allowed to loiter in US airspace unhindered and you must conclude that this was an inside job. It was simply applying the techniques of overseas black operations on a domestic front to fulfill a political and ideological agenda of key members in our government. No islamic hijackings and/or a very graphic and public catastrophe on live TV = no pissed off civilians and no support for an invasion of whomever we were told did it. We wanted our pound of flesh and we were determined to get our revenge. Convieniently, only hours after it happened di the FBI know the identities of most of the hijackers and who financially backed them? Whoa! Not even Monk could solve that crime so quickly.


Anyone here ever read Orwell's "Animal Farm" before? Here's a hint: Snowball didn't do it.....and neither did 19 misfit arab Islamic terrorists. So, who had the ability to perform such a high level operation which entailed misdirecting USAF interceptors and relocating 99% of all military interceptor coverage of the north eastern corridor? Who destroyed crucial forensic crime scene evidence such as the structural steel from the WTC complex before almost any of it could be evaluated? Who seized the multiple surveillance tapes that show what REALLY struck the Pentagon and have refused to release them to the public? I doubt that Atta could swing any of those feats. I'll let you decide...



EDIT

I almost forgot. How can anyone be so sure that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda was really behind the 9/11 attacks? You see, there is NO PROOF whatsoever. If there was such proof wouldn't you think that perhaps the FBI would have listed something as significant as the 9/11 attacks as a prime reason for wanting to capture him? However, they don't even mention 9/11. Why not?

FBI: Most Wanted Terrorists List


Ask yourself the questions posed in this post and honestly try to resolve them in your mind. The official story simply does not add up. It all points us to a predetermined conclusion and the inevitable and predictable response- revenge. We are being used for ulterior motives and our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends and neighbors are the pawns so carelessly discarded by those civilians in the White House and cabinet who run the military but had not even served their duty when called upon. It's disgusting and treasonous.


From the United States Code: Oath of Office
"An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”"


There's a specific reason that the word "domestic" was included in the Oath of Office. It's because we as a representative democratic republic are as susceptible (perhaps moreso) to destruction from rogue forces within our government as from outside foreign enemies. The Oath is to uphold our Constitution which contains the principles in which this 219 year old grand experiment of a truly free and representative government was founded upon. 9/11 wasn't so much an attack on our citizens or property as much as it was the beginning of an assault on our entire form of government from within. The alternative form being promoted is an authoritarian government possibly even being enacted under the declaration of martial law due to threats of domestic terrorism. It's the mere specter of security provided in exchange for liberties formerly guaranteed by our Constitution. Once we allow our Constitution to become eroded, we no longer have the form of government instituted by the people, for the people. Personally, that's something that I'm not willing to part with under any condition.

I apologize for the length of this post. I guess that I just had a lot to say on this topic.

[babyblues]

OK, now you’ve turned into a conspiracy theorist. I'm sorry, but I'm going to give my country the benefit of the doubt, whether I'm wrong or right, and not believe that they staged 9/11 just for an excuse to invade Iraq for oil. That's not very rational and as a rational person, I refuse to listen to it. I respect the fact that you have extensive knowledge about some of today's current events, but when you start theorizing about a conspiracy.....you've lost me. Our government doesn't have to explain every last detail to your complete satisfaction in order to exonerate themselves. You're assuming their guilty and demanding that they prove they're not. I know that you've constructed what you think is a very convincing arguement and you've raised questions that you feel are grounds for skepticism, but I'm not inclined to share your sentiments. I think that you're more of an anarchist than anything.

I don't doubt that there's more to the story than we've been spoonfed by our government, but I'm not going to go so far off into left field as to say that it's all a big plot to take over Iraq's oil. Why don't we just invade Saudi Arabia? They control the largest amount of proven oil reserves in the world. If oil's what we're really after, than that would be a better invasion than Iraq. Hell, Canada has more oil reserves than Iraq. We could take over Canada no problem. Oh, I know! We should invade South America next! They would offer no real resistance and we could just take Venezuelan, Brazilian and Mexican oil all for ourselves. I'm a genius!!!! Controling all of North and South American deposits, we could tell the rest of the world to pound sand. We'd control over 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Since we are by far the largest consumer of crude oil, the rest of the world's oil will become worthless and soon, middle eastern economies will crumble leaving their countries in complete chaos, which would leave them suseptible to an invasion. And after we invade the middle east and gain control of most of the world's oil reserves, our brilliant master plan to rule the world will have come to fruition.

Maybe we didn't want to give up the economic profitability of illegal immigrants from Mexico working in the US for next to nothing and an invasion of Canada would be too obvious, so we took the easiest route and staged a bombing of the World Trade centers so we could invade Iraq. Iraqis are expendable, who's going to care, right? Because who would believe that some religious fanatic from Canada crashed a plane into the WTC?

Smokem peace pipe much?

Canada has the second largest deposits of oil in the world and recent discoveries in Australia estimate that they may also have more oil deposits than Iraq. If we really wanted to just take their oil, I'm thinking that we could draw a few more countries into our web of deceipt and with their help take over the world's oil. I'm sure Japan, China, Germany and Russia would be willing to cooperate with us since we're the 5 largest consumers of oil in the world.

[Primal Instinct]

OK, now you’ve turned into a conspiracy theorist. I'm sorry, but I'm going to give my country the benefit of the doubt, whether I'm wrong or right, and not believe that they staged 9/11 just for an excuse to invade Iraq for oil. That's not very rational and as a rational person, I refuse to listen to it. I respect the fact that you have extensive knowledge about some of today's current events, but when you start theorizing about a conspiracy.....you've lost me. Our government doesn't have to explain every last detail to your complete satisfaction in order to exonerate themselves. You're assuming their guilty and demanding that they prove they're not. I know that you've constructed what you think is a very convincing arguement and you've raised questions that you feel are grounds for skepticism, but I'm not inclined to share your sentiments. I think that you're more of an anarchist than anything.

I don't doubt that there's more to the story than we've been spoonfed by our government, but I'm not going to go so far off into left field as to say that it's all a big plot to take over Iraq's oil. Why don't we just invade Saudi Arabia? They control the largest amount of proven oil reserves in the world. If oil's what we're really after, than that would be a better invasion than Iraq. Hell, Canada has more oil reserves than Iraq. We could take over Canada no problem. Oh, I know! We should invade South America next! They would offer no real resistance and we could just take Venezuelan, Brazilian and Mexican oil all for ourselves. I'm a genius!!!! Controling all of North and South American deposits, we could tell the rest of the world to pound sand. We'd control over 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Since we are by far the largest consumer of crude oil, the rest of the world's oil will become worthless and soon, middle eastern economies will crumble leaving their countries in complete chaos, which would leave them suseptible to an invasion. And after we invade the middle east and gain control of most of the world's oil reserves, our brilliant master plan to rule the world will have come to fruition.

Maybe we didn't want to give up the economic profitability of illegal immigrants from Mexico working in the US for next to nothing and an invasion of Canada would be too obvious, so we took the easiest route and staged a bombing of the World Trade centers so we could invade Iraq. Iraqis are expendable, who's going to care, right? Because who would believe that some religious fanatic from Canada crashed a plane into the WTC?

Smokem peace pipe much?

Canada has the second largest deposits of oil in the world and recent discoveries in Australia estimate that they may also have more oil deposits than Iraq. If we really wanted to just take their oil, I'm thinking that we could draw a few more countries into our web of deceipt and with their help take over the world's oil. I'm sure Japan, China, Germany and Russia would be willing to cooperate with us since we're the 5 largest consumers of oil in the world.

It wasn't for oil, babyblues. That's a popular miconception. The neoconservatives don't want the oil. They just want to break OPEC and control the PRICE of oil. Still, that is not the primary goal of the neoconservative ideology in the middle east anyhow. As for a conspiracy theorist, lol. You should take a look at this from an objective perspective so that you can more thoroughly understand exactly who is behind such policies and what the primary golas are. In that, I can help you understand because the foreign policy of this administration had been publicized even before Bush took office. It has absolutely nothing to do with democrats vs rebublicans or liberals vs conservatives. That stuff is all just window dressings meant to distarct and get people poointing fingers at each other so that they get confused and ignore the real issues. Neoconservatism is neither of these two different political philosophies. It is a strictly authoritarian-based political philosophy which was first promoted by Machiavelli centuries ago, then Allan Bloom and Leo Strauss again in the last 50 years right here in the US. Several members of the PNAC have studied directly under Strauss while at Chicago University in the early 60's.

Here is the blueprint for a US invasion of Iraq which was presented to then president Clinton by most of the current Bush Administration members in power during Bush's first term and continuing today. It was written and sent back in 1998, not during Dubya's term.
Project for a New American Century Letter to President Clinton

Read the names of the signatories. Google them if you don't recognize them. Once the letter was rebuffed by Clinton, these same people sent a similar letter to the majority leaders of the US Congress' House and Senate in order to circumvent Clinton and spur a 2/3 majority vote to enact a US military invasion of Iraq. Here is that letter addresed just four months later:
Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq


You might say, "So what?" Well, one of the founders of this group is none other than VP Dick Cheney, who just happened to be in a position to pick the vast majority of the George W. Bush presidential cabinets in both terms. It is a given that he would select people of a similar mindset and place them in positions of authority in order to make the invasion of Iraq happen. Here is the Statement of principles and notice the signatories at the bottom:
Project for a New American Century: Statement of Principles


Are you beginning to see a pattern here yet? This stuff was out in the open and continues to be unabashedly promoted by the neocon hawks running our government and foreign policy today. 9/11 was simply a means to an end, nothing more. If you had any familiarity with MAchiavellian and Straussian principles you could clearly make that assessment. Most people have no idea at all who those people were or what they stood for, however. That's why they think that 9/11 being an inside job is some wacko conspiracy. The thing is, what is officially promoted to us about 9/11 is the real conspiracy. Black is white and white is black. The goal is to remake the entire world into a US-client state starting with the middle east. There is no other superpower out there to keep these neocons in check, so it's like a license to steal because we are the biggest, meanest dog on the block and can do what we please in spite of world concensus. That is a dangerous and foolish game they're playing. Our lives hang in the process.


It was all about sacrifice, babyblues. Innocents would be sacrificed in the 9/11 attacks in order to spur resentment at home and drive this nation to war in order to achieve what it cannot during peacetime. The game was rigged from the beginning but lots of people couldn't see it. Now they see such a disastrous policy in action in Iraq and Afghanistan but it's too late because we can't put the genie back into the bottle.


Did it occur to anyone reading this that there was a reason for the gap in time that the second tower was struck or that they collapsed? See, the first tower gets impacted by an aircraft but there are very few people (relatively speaking) who saw this occur. There are only perhaps two videos of the first impact. However, it was big news on that Tuesday morning. The second tower was struck AFTER camera crews from all of the major networks were in place and filming. BAMM! "OMG, did you see that? A second plane struck! We're under attack!" Nice. Once the entire world is focused upon the burning towers and the charge sequences are reset to match the impact zones, what is the next thing that happens? The towers collapse! It is a psychological efffect that surely drives a knife of fear into all who were watching. It was the money shot, so to speak. Who could deny such devastation and not want revenge for this outrage?


You might attribute all that happened that day to bumbling and neglectful air defense systems, erroneous intelligence reports, Islamic fundamentalist madmen and a shadowy figure residing in a cave a half of the world away but I assure you, these events were a precision military exercise carried out to the T.


A quote to consider when discussing the US invasion of Iraq, as it applies to any nation's leaders seeking to invade another nation whether warranted or not:

""Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. (with regard to an elected government)"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."


That candid statement was made by Hitler's number two man, Hermann Goering in a jail cell during the time of the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi officials after WWII. This tactic was used extensively by the president, VP, and their highest cabinet officials of the George W. Bush administration. The nightly news happily parroted these sentiments further driving us towards an elective war. Anyone here remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out? How about Freedom toats or Freedom fries? Just a snapshot of the ludicrous sentiments being bantered about by uninformed and politically aspirating people with media access. You're either with us or with the terrorists....lol. Fucking cowboy talking shit.....sad. All hat and no cattle.

[Shibby]

Primal, I'm not well educated on this subject so I'm not being critical, I'm just giving a observation. But the way you describe it sounds a bit like Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" and John Travolta in "Swordfish"

[babyblues]

I read all of the links that you provided and I don't see the connection between what they were asking Clinton and Congress to do and what you claim they were asking. You've made the connection to Machiavelli and his supposed philosophies that you claim are predominant in our current administrations policies. Again, I don't agree. I fail to see how the Project for the New American Century supports the ideology of men such as Hermann Goering or Hitler. What’s more, I don’t agree with your view of neoconservatism. You have grossly misused the term and made associations to the political movement that just aren’t true.

Machiavelli’s work Il Principe (The Prince) has been largely misinterpreted. I personally haven’t read the book, but reviews site that he distinguishes the subject matter of this book as pertaining to principalities or monarchial feudatory and is a guidebook primarily based on his empirical observation. It wasn’t meant to be a disertation on his personal views. At the time he was trying to win the graces of the Medici family in Italy who had him tortured and imprisoned for his supposed involvement in a conspiracy to oppose their rule. His work Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (Discourses on Livy) more clearly demonstrates his observations of the establishment and reform of a republic. Machiavellianism is a term that has been created to refer to a person’s tendency to deceive and manipulate others for their own gain. I don’t see that Machiavelli set out to endorse this behavior. I believe he was merely making the observation that in order to be a sucessful monarchy, this was required.

I also don’t agree that neoconservatism as you have described it defines the actions and policies of our current administration. I find it all to convenient to interpret the events of 9/11 to portray our governments as conspirators bent on achieving their political agenda through any means necessary, even at the expense of moral values and the lives of the citizens they govern. Again, I see your theory as a conspiracy theory, nothing more. You have incorporated into your theory guilt by associations that do not exist.

[blm]

Primal, I'm not well educated on this subject so I'm not being critical, I'm just giving a observation. But the way you describe it sounds a bit like Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" and John Travolta in "Swordfish"

Do some research on the Operation Northwood. There is declassified government documentation showing that the government planned to wage a war of terrorism on our own people to bolster up support for a war w/Cuba. These aren't conspiracies, it is factual government information.

[Primal Instinct]

Babyblues,

I guess that we will have to agree to disagree then. I will say this though, that more prevalent than Machiavelli are the views of Leo Strauss and Alan Bloom in this administration. It is the "they are too stupid to know what's good for them so we must retain authority to govern the masses" mentality. Look towards the Cheneys, Perles, Wolfowitzes in this and the first administrations for validity. It becomes a matter of leading the populace regardless of their wishes in order to achieve the big picture. That picture is maintaining the leadership role (militarily and economically) of the US in the world and quashing any challenging upandcomers. It is stated as such on the Project for a New American Century Statement of Principles and under the four essential missions in the Rebuilding America's Defenses white paper also contained on the website.


Either way, I truly feel that when this group of people are running a "forward leaning" foreign policy and seek to use small-scale tactical nuclear weapons as an offense weapon integrated with what would normally be considered a conventional war, they have gone too far. You may feel otherwise. This is a primary reason why Iran is scrambling to develop weapons grade plutonium right now. They may not come out publically and say it but we all know that in reality, most nations not extremely friendly with this current leadership feel that their only real protection from a US military invasion or air campaign is to get nukes as fast as possible and use them as a deterrence. The neocons know this and push harder to beat the clock. It is a game of positioning and a race to establish security on both sides of the issue.


BTW, neoconservatives are an offshoot of far, far left liberalists who became disenchanted in the late 50's - early 60's with US policymaking. Many leanings are much closer to Trotsky and Marxism than anything resembling what we may consider modern liberalism or conservatism. Although they ran under a conservative label, the Bush-Cheney cabal is anything but a true conservative organization. Look at the record deficit spending then look at the imperialistic foreign policymaking. Then consider their leanings toward supporting a welfare state, since it would be desireable to create a gulf between the haves and the have-nots since they become dependent upon the state and therefore can be marginalized effectively. Wolfowitz studied under Strauss at Chicago University in the early to mid-60's. He had a tremendous impact on Paul's (and many others in the Bush cabinets) political philosophies. So, for that reason, you may want to read up on what Staruss and Bloom were really all about and then look at the people in key positions of our government in the White House, DOD and State Departments. You will start to see what you had previously dismissed as irrelevant or a "conspiracy theorist's" view as something more sinister in nature and our wellbeing is not a consideration when looking at the big picture- oligarchy or authoritarianism. These people are extremely powerful and intelligent ideologists and should not be underestimated.

[hlcn8]

One observation on the points being made here... those who are making the argument that it was a conspiracy of sorts have done well to document, cite sources, etc... those countering the argument have referred to plots from movies and statements like "smokem peace pipe."
I don't say this to slander those who think it wasn't a conspiracy, my feelings are that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but i'd like to see a better argument from the side saying it wasn't a conspiracy. it'll add dimension to this debate and show both sides more equally. that's what i think this thread should be about!

[Shibby]

I don't have the knowledge to debate one side or the other. I'm just kind of listening. On one hand I don't think it's a conspiracy because there are just evil people in the world and they would terrorize inocent. But in the same context there are just that evil of people that may work in our government.

[Bouncer]

Little green aliens just walked across my back yard. Elvis was with them too!!

[jwoody]

Little green aliens just walked across my back yard. Elvis was with them too!!

:laughnew: :laughnew: :laughnew:

I don't know why but that just made my day!!!!!!!!!!!