|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
... those questions, and hundreds more, just bug me.
and not for the reason that i think they're appropriate, but rather cuz it just pisses me off that people are so fucking conspiracy-sworn and anti-establishment and negative, etc, etc, etc.
do you honestly, for one second, believe that if the government KNEW that 9-11 would bring the death of several thousand people, they'd let it happen anyway?
yes, i know, there are flaws in our countries. loop holes, problems, snafus... we didnt need this to bring it to our attention. MAYBE it will help hi-lite some of the weaker points. ... but just because something is weak doesnt mean that there are better solutions.
lets look at it this way -- what could 'they' (our gubment) have done?
like i've said before, lets say on august 11th, osama personally called up georgie boy and told him he was gonna fly planes into buildings, kill people, and destroy the US.
later that night, georgie would start a plan to spend billions of dollars recruiting new armed forces and using the existing ones to set up perimeters all around washington DC.
additionally, he could have started up forces to attack the mid east and find osama. above and beyond that, he coulda cancelled all flights for the rest of the year.
had the government done that, they would have been brilliant leaders and saved us all from the horrid attacks of that day. thousands of lives would still be here, ny's skyline would be unchanged, and millions of people would be slightly less afraid.
...
but millions of americans woulda hated bush for spending needless money, cancelling vacation flights, and protecting only himself in DC. millions more would hate our actions for attacking the mid-east unprovoked.
...
bottom line, there IS no right answer. did we know something? maybe. but no matter what, it would have been a bad move, and guys like TTT would post tons of articles about others' with perfect hindsight.
at that point, there really was no reason to take all of the threats seriously. obviously, now, we know that we should have -- but in retrospect, we didnt do anything wrong.
if we investigated EVERY threat on our country to the fullest extent, we'd have no cops left to handle regular, ever day events. everyone would be busy watching someone else. security, everywhere, would be bumped up to prison level. most everything outdoors would be cancelled, and nothing on a large scale would ever be planned.
and even then, with all that 'safety,' people would hate the government cuz of their 'big brother' aspects. people would look around, see no crime or terrorism, and ask why we're spending all this time and money on stopping it. TTT would find an article about how there's no osama bin laden entitled 'wheredy go?'
no matter what happens, people will doubt or question or find fault with. people will always know that joe montanna shouldnt have thrown jerry rice that pass in 1989 or that you should have turned at the corner deli to get there faster.
hindsight is perfectly lucid.
mebbe tomorrow, everyone else will realize that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
I suspect you know how I feel about this one, Rob. I don't post around here much, but you're the one with the thankless job of deleting my posts on the DC boards. ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif) Actually, there's plenty he could've done, and you call be an armchair quarterback if you will, but I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect it from one's government. All he would've had to have done is issue a statement: "We expect terrorists to attempt to take over commercial flights." There you go. That's all. No heavy-handed cancelling of flights. No attack on the Middle East. Just a quick note. "We expect terrorists to attempt to take over commercial flights." Yes, the airline industry would've taken a hit. Boy, aren't we glad that didn't happen. And yes, I have no difficulty believing that our government would knowingly participate in (let alone allow) the deaths of thousands of its citizens. How much of a jump would it be from Pearl Harbor, when Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the attack but allowed it to happen in order to garner popular support for what would've otherwise been an impossibly unpopular war, to this, where the Shrub Administration and its oil buddies stand to make huge heaps o' cash as long as they can pull off what would've been an even less popular war? You might say there's a big difference between Pearl Harbor and 911. I say there's a big difference between Roosevelt and the Shrub.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
great googily moogily -- thats just silly.
..man..
were it that easy, OF COURSE it would have been done. why wouldnt it?
but like i said above, there was no reason to anticipate such an event. threats are made all the time (since before we were born, to sept 11, to yesterday, to next week. ALL THE TIME.) if we acted on all of them, we'd have no country to speak of. rather, we'd be running away from the sky on any given moment.
but, here we go. lets say (god help us) you're right. lets play out the scenario for ya:
osama calls up dubya on the bat-phone, and tells him of the impending attack, tomorrow morning.
dubya acts how you want him to, interrupts 'friends' and announces a threat on our country in the form of airline hijacking on public tv.
instantly (INSTANTLY) the airlines 'take a hit' as you put it. we spend billions of dollars fortifying every airline in our states, spooging up security.
but, more importantly, sept 11 comes and goes as just a normal day, and george is a hero for saving thousands of people.
right?
you're absolutely right -- that does sound easy.
unfortunately, that never was, nor never will be, how things work.
thats not being an armchair quarterback, thats knowing the future and planning accordingly for it. miss cleo would be proud.
more realistically, if dubya did all of the above, it woudl turn out like this:
he'd be relentlessly blamed for spending billions of needless dollars and needless man hours on protecting the airports (dont forget, he was already being picked on for building our defenses in the summer of 2001, 'needlessly')
he'd be blamed for ruining the air industry. he'd be considered a "punk" for "bowing" to terrorists. terrorists, everywhere, would see that they could now have an effect on the US by making threats and not even having to support them.
further, the existing psychotic terrorists would just concentrate on finding some other way to kill innocents. 'insanity' doesnt just go away. instead of sept 11th, we might have october 11th go down in history as the day of horrible attacks.
yer right. thats much better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
But we aren't talking about some hypothetical eventuality, here. We're talking about our intelligence agencies knowing that the bad guys wanted to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center.
Not that they might do it. Not that they were thinking about doing it. Not even that they had threatened to do it, because if they ever did, I never heard about it. Our government knew that they were planning to do it, and unless stopped would do it. And as our government chose not to stop them -- and actually got in the way of anybody else stopping them -- it happened.
Yes, the Shrub probably would've taken a hit in the polls (ironically) if he had made the statement, "We believe that terrorists are planning to hijack planes and use them as weapons." The airline industry would've taken a financial hit, as well. The Shrub would've been blamed. But you tell me -- does that make it okay? Does it become acceptable to aid evil because doing the right thing is unpopular?
By your own account, he weighed his political career against the lives of everyone in the WTC, and decided that his career was worth more. Not the kind of guy I want deciding matters of national importance.
They knew so many specifics about this crime, they could've stopped it. Hell, even if they'd tried and failed, I could've understood. Fuckups happen, sometimes fuckups on a huge scale. I'll forgive incompetence (though I might not vote for it).
But they didn't try. They did quite the opposite.
And what a coincidence. The Shrub's numbers soared, where the day before they were plummeting. Guess he knows where his bread is buttered, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
But we aren't talking about some hypothetical eventuality, here. We're talking about our intelligence agencies knowing that the bad guys wanted to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center.?
prove this.
i beg of you, prove this.
quote sources, other than the onion, that states our government absolutely knew that this was going to happen, when it was going to happen, and how it was going to happen (and that it wasnt an 'if') and that we did nothing.
quote:
By your own account, he weighed his political career against the lives of everyone in the WTC, and decided that his career was worth more. Not the kind of guy I want deciding matters of national importance.
ok, lets make it easier.
prove THIS. prove where I said this.
i bet you y'can quote both from the same place!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
quote:
more realistically, if dubya did all of the above, it woudl turn out like this:
he'd be relentlessly blamed for spending billions of needless dollars and needless man hours on protecting the airports (dont forget, he was already being picked on for building our defenses in the summer of 2001, 'needlessly')
he'd be blamed for ruining the air industry. he'd be considered a "punk" for "bowing" to terrorists. terrorists, everywhere, would see that they could now have an effect on the US by making threats and not even having to support them.
I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood you?
As for the other thing ... that the government (or at least the CIA -- they're the ones that decided not to hand over information to the FBI -- funny how the FBI is taking all the heat) was specifically aware of these guys, and watching them ... is being reported on CNN as we speak.
The mainstream press is picking this one up. They sort of have to, at this point. It's become tacitly obvious to the American public that something screwy is going on here. The mainstream press is admitting right now that the government knew more, and could have done more, than they did. The only thing they're leaving out is why.
But, since I've turned this into sort of a twisted hobby lately, let's go ahead. I'll make my case. You'll forgive me if I turn the tables, though, and ask you to be specific in your questions.
So, which parts aren't you buying? I'll even number the points, to make it easy on us.
1) That there's a proposed oil pipeline from Turkmenistan that would have to go through either Iran or Afghanistan, and that Afghanistan is the economical choice?
2) That Haliburton and UNOCAL, both companies so tightly linked to the Shrub Administration that they pretty much are the Shrub Administration (along with a handful of other oil interests and big-money sponsors), have a specific interest in that pipeline?
3) That the higher ranks of our nation's intelligence community were aware of the terrorist threat and its specific usefulness in motivating the country to allow a military strike on Afghanistan, necessary for the ousting of the Taliban and the stability of the area, making a pipeline possible?
4) That the CIA met with Osama bin Laden months prior to 911, while he was in the hospital being treated for some kidney problem?
Tell me which part you don't believe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
...cant...
...find...
...proper...
...emoticon...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,506 Likes: 64
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,506 Likes: 64 |
Did W know? Of course he did, he masterminded the whole operation, after all.
Sincerely,
Art Bell, Oliver Stone, and TheTimeTrust
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
quote:
Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
quote:
more realistically, if dubya did all of the above, it woudl turn out like this:
he'd be relentlessly blamed for spending billions of needless dollars and needless man hours on protecting the airports (dont forget, he was already being picked on for building our defenses in the summer of 2001, 'needlessly')
he'd be blamed for ruining the air industry. he'd be considered a "punk" for "bowing" to terrorists. terrorists, everywhere, would see that they could now have an effect on the US by making threats and not even having to support them.
I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood you?
As for the other thing ... that the government (or at least the CIA -- they're the ones that decided not to hand over information to the FBI -- funny how the FBI is taking all the heat) was specifically aware of these guys, and watching them ... is being reported on CNN as we speak.
The mainstream press is picking this one up. They sort of have to, at this point. It's become tacitly obvious to the American public that something screwy is going on here. The mainstream press is admitting right now that the government knew more, and could have done more, than they did. The only thing they're leaving out is why.
But, since I've turned this into sort of a twisted hobby lately, let's go ahead. I'll make my case. You'll forgive me if I turn the tables, though, and ask you to be specific in your questions.
So, which parts aren't you buying? I'll even number the points, to make it easy on us.
1) That there's a proposed oil pipeline from Turkmenistan that would have to go through either Iran or Afghanistan, and that Afghanistan is the economical choice?
2) That Haliburton and UNOCAL, both companies so tightly linked to the Shrub Administration that they pretty much are the Shrub Administration (along with a handful of other oil interests and big-money sponsors), have a specific interest in that pipeline?
3) That the higher ranks of our nation's intelligence community were aware of the terrorist threat and its specific usefulness in motivating the country to allow a military strike on Afghanistan, necessary for the ousting of the Taliban and the stability of the area, making a pipeline possible?
4) That the CIA met with Osama bin Laden months prior to 911, while he was in the hospital being treated for some kidney problem?
Tell me which part you don't believe.
.......do you still believe in Santa Claus?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016 |
How dare the US try to give Afganistan an economy! How dare it indeed! ![[nono]](graemlins/nono.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
...not to mention being the biggest contributor of food and medical aid, but of course that was just because we wanted a pipeline!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
Boy, if the Shrub ever goes to trial, he'd better hope he gets better defense attorneys than you guys. Sarcasm just wouldn't cut it. ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif) Right. I'll chalk this one up as a victory and move on ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016 |
![[izzat so?]](graemlins/zatso.gif) He won't need a defense, the oil companies own the justice system after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,506 Likes: 64
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,506 Likes: 64 |
<.......do you still believe in Santa Claus?>
No, but I do believe in Franta Claus...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
Actually, the oil companies only own the justice system by proxy. The oil companies own the military, and the military owns the justice system. Gotta keep your conspiracies straight, y'see.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
Only if you're an oil company, dude. Otherwise, you're cannon fodder.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
OK, I'll bite. Conspiracy theories can be like jigsaw puzzles where you can see the picture but the pieces don't fit together.
One good reason why Dubya didn't know - what if he was caught out? Some people would have found it a delicious irony that he was executed for treason - others would have been happy having him tried for criminal negligence.
Jack, you ever see the photo of him being told of the attacks? That is not the face of a man who knew.
My personal theory? No one knew, except al Qaeda. Rumsfield was too busy masturbating over Star Wars, and no one even gave it serious consideration: the al Qaeda pilots were seasoned and deranged fanatics determined to kill as many innocent civilians as they could, who would rather give their lives than give up a secret. The oil companies have seen a big opportunity - they haven't engineered something like this - what if someone leaked it? (read "When Good Companies do Bad things" by Schwartz and Gibb) The CIA had no decent field operatives inside of Afghanistan since their funding dried up, so they knew jack shit about anything (and someone should be sacked for that) and the FBI are cops, not MI5 (domestic espionage - Americans don't like their government spying on them).
You are offering a picture where the pieces don't fit. I'll give you Cuba, and I might even barely give you Pearl Harbour, but I won't give you the WTC on the basis of insupportable conjecture.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
dont you interfere with logic now!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
The problem is that the Shrub Administration has too much to gain. In order to believe they had nothing to do with it, you have to ignore a lot of evidence.
You have to ignore the report by Le Figaro that the CIA met with Bin Laden in the hospital in ... what was it, June? A few months before 911, anyway.
Then you have to ignore the way standard protocols for dealing with hijackings weren't followed. The normal procedure would've been to scramble jets in case the planes had to be shot out of the sky. For that to not happen, somebody had to give an order to keep it from happening.
You also have to ignore the reports by CNN and other "established" news sources that these very criminals were under surveillance right up until 911 -- this is further demonstrated by the fact that they seemed to know who had done what on the very day that it happened.
And yeah, they're saying that somebody in the FBI or the CIA or both prohibited investigation that would've halted 911 ... all they're leaving out is why. You have to ignore that, too.
The puzzle pieces are all quite thoroughly in place, even on just the mainstream news. They aren't going to put it together for you, though ... think about it. You're the guy in charge of CNN (I forget who actually is these days). It becomes patently obvious that something screwy is going on. How do you report that?
There's never going to be any big newsflash: "BUSH DID IT!!!" It'll never happen. You're going to have to figure it out on your own.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
Just for the record, what I think happened is this:
In the mid-to-late 1990s, the Oil Boys get together and decide they want a pipeline. This occurs both for financial and strategic reasons, some good, some bad. They decide that they can't put up a pipeline while the Taliban is ostensibly in control of Afghanistan, 'cause the Taliban don't really have control. It's too risky for the pipeline. And they can't go through Iran. So they decide they're gonna have to deal with Afghanistan.
The U.S. election rolls around, and Bush is appointed "President" by the Supreme Court. What would've happened if Gore were in the White House, I can't say. Possibly the same thing ... Democrats are really just slightly leftist Republicans these days.
Now, you can argue all you want that the Shrub really is the President, but the unavoidable fact remains that most of the people who voted didn't want him in office. Not much of a "mandate from the people." Things are looking bleak for the Shrub Administration, and as he manages to screw up everything he touches, he gets into more and more trouble. They even end up with defections in Congress. The media starts to turn on him. He's "The Accidental President."
So they send some boy from the CIA, which the Elder Shrub tended to use as his own personal financial investigators anyway, to meet with Bin Laden while he's in the hospital. Yes, the guy we supposedly can't catch is, theoretically, wandering around in the desert with kidney disease. So the CIA makes Bin Laden an offer he can't refuse, wherein both sides win.
Al-Qaeda puts together the plan. The CIA keeps tabs on them. The CIA knows that Al-Qaeda plans to hijack plans and slam them into the World Trade Center and the White House (I'm still not clear on this part -- what the plan actually was might never come out). This is why Attorney General John Ashcroft is criticized in the months before 911 for spending taxpayer money on private jets, when he should be taking public airliners.
Now, we know what happened. Planes crashed into both towers of the WTC, and it came down. I don't think the CIA realized that the WTC might come crashing down (I can only imagine the looks on their faces when it happened).
We also know that something blew up a big chunk of the Pentagon, but the details remain sketchy there. I've yet to read a credible report on exactly what did happen, but there's enough doubt that the official story shouldn't be taken as gospel.
Likewise with the flight that went down in the woods (I think that was Flight 97). The story that heroic passengers sacrificed themselves is a good one, and I'd like to believe it, but for some reason it sets off my bullshit alarm. The most likely event is that by this point, somebody did scramble the jets (about half an hour late) and this flight was shot out of the sky. I'm not sure why the Shrub Administration would feel the need to concoct a cover story, but I think it's just pretty much reflex with these guys, now.
It's also worth noting that this particular jet is one of the ones that changed course (the other was the one that supposedly hit the Pentagon). Both of the planes that changed course have something screwy going on with their stories. Worth noting, but I'm not sure what to make of it. I suspect that what happened is that the White House was the original target (the Shrub was safely away giving a speech to some kids at a school), but the hijackers changed their minds.
Maybe it was a little coup-within-a-coup, or something. I don't know. But I suspect that when the third plane didn't follow the plan (that's the one that supposedly hit the Pentagon), the decision was made to take down the fourth plane.
Okay, so now we've got a nation in mourning. I remember talking to a friend of mine about some experiments in trauma-assisted mind-control being carried out by the government, and remarking that it would be interesting to see what sort of event might be used to traumatize an entire nation into pliability. Those words have come back to haunt me.
So, to keep the hysteria going, they start sending out anthrax. When the FBI, with the help of the media, manages to track the source of the anthrax attacks down to the CIA, serious shit starts flying behind the scenes. Note that the FBI is now being punished severely, and that the CIA is basically taking over (also on CNN: most of the new agents heading into the FBI are CIA agents). They want to make sure there's nobody around to investigate their next batch of evildoings.
Meanwhile, the pipeline is going through. The Shrub Administration has managed to accomplish more to send us back to the Civil Liberty Dark Ages than anybody ever would've dreamed possible. It's a right-wing orgy out there.
There's a bit of speculation on the details, here, but the basics remain unquestionable unless you're a conspiracy theorist yourself and you don't want to take CNN and the mainstream media as gospel (funny how that's really the short definition of a conspiracy theorist).
The pieces of the puzzle have all been reported, they just aren't going to put it together for you. If you can argue any individual piece (where I haven't admitted that it's just speculation on my part), I'd love to hear it.
If you can't, I suggest that you take a little leap and think for yourselves. Waiting for CNN to tell you anything means you're never gonna know shit. We all know the phrase, "The revolution will not be televised," right? Well, that goes for a lot of things. The transition of our government from republic to dictatorship will also not be televised. The would-be dictators own the TVs.
And guys? I really wish you would put together a coherent argument. 'Cause frankly, when you come back with nothing but jokes and the implication that I must be nuts for thinking anything other than what the Shrub Administration tells me ... that really just proves that there aren't very many arguments to be made.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
....i love to see a childs mind at work....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
quote:
Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
There's never going to be any big newsflash: "BUSH DID IT!!!" It'll never happen. You're going to have to figure it out on your own.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=4&u=/ap/20020609/ap_on_re_as/afghan_lost_opportunity__6
Not only did Bush ignore the warnings, he built a time machine, and made the Clinton Administration do it too!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
y'know whats "weird"?
the convenience store around the corner from me was just robbed, like, last week.
thats retarded!!
how could something like that happen?
its a known fact that convenience stores will be robbed (3 are robbed per state, per day). its a known fact that convenience store employees will be harassed (conv. store clerk being ranked as the 5th worst job in america).
and yet, it keeps happening!
AND, according to detailed police records, complete with photo reports, many convenience store assailants are repeat offenders, often attempting to rob from the same store twice within a years time.
how, with all this fore-knowledge, does it continue?!!? especially when cops are ALWAYS at convenience stores to get coffee and nudie mags.
obviously, its because they allow it to happen.
and im sure its no coincidence that most convenience stores are run by arab-americans.
certainly, this, too, must be a conspiracy -- thinking ANY other way means that you're ignoring a lot of facts and, therefore, wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016 |
Zod's underwear covers up a conspiracy!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
If it has a brown streak, that tain't oil!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
You ask for a logical debate from me, and you get the pizza with the works. quote:
Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
The problem is that the Shrub Administration has too much to gain. In order to believe they had nothing to do with it, you have to ignore a lot of evidence.
You have to ignore the report by Le Figaro that the CIA met with Bin Laden in the hospital in ... what was it, June? A few months before 911, anyway.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html
A French intelligence source, un-named, denied by the hospital and the US government. For reasons I want to go into in respect of France in the Deep Thoughts board, there are still eough French about who want to throw dirt on the US to regard that story as hard to swallow. Corroborate it with another independent source, and we can debate it further.
quote:
Then you have to ignore the way standard protocols for dealing with hijackings weren't followed. The normal procedure would've been to scramble jets in case the planes had to be shot out of the sky. For that to not happen, somebody had to give an order to keep it from happening.
Jets were scrambled. My source:
http://newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-wtc-jets0919.story
They were only minutes away when the planes hit.
Your source, please.
quote:
You also have to ignore the reports by CNN and other "established" news sources that these very criminals were under surveillance right up until 911 -- this is further demonstrated by the fact that they seemed to know who had done what on the very day that it happened.
What's your source for that? Then we can debate it further.
quote:
And yeah, they're saying that somebody in the FBI or the CIA or both prohibited investigation that would've halted 911 ... all they're leaving out is why. You have to ignore that, too.
OK, I will. I think you're mistaking monumental stupidity, a lack of resoucres, poor morale and inter-jurisdictional turf wars with a conspiracy.
From a few days before the attacks:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010904-fbi.htm
The FBI were crying themselves to sleep because everyone thought they were a bunch of fuck-ups. Correctly, as it turns out.
quote:
The puzzle pieces are all quite thoroughly in place, even on just the mainstream news. They aren't going to put it together for you, though ... think about it. You're the guy in charge of CNN (I forget who actually is these days). It becomes patently obvious that something screwy is going on. How do you report that?
You don't report uncorroborated conspiracy theories irrespective of whether you're a blatantly pro-American CNN of a more open minded Guardian.
quote:
There's never going to be any big newsflash: "BUSH DID IT!!!" It'll never happen. You're going to have to figure it out on your own.
There are two standards of proof - for crime, its "beyond reasonable doubt", and for civil matters, its "on the balance of probabilities". Even on the lower standard, you've not given us anything which substantiates what you've said. Innuendo, logical leaps and slippery slopes do not a rational argument make.
Still, having said all that, I admire your willingness to look beyond the party line. Too bad you are willing to take a position which isn't cogent.
[ 06-11-2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Rob Kamphausen ]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
Argh, Rob, can you fix up the bold for me? You know I'm a UBB retard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
dave's "quote bold"s werent working... even tho he readily admitted he didnt know how to place them in. minutes later, i went in to fix them, which left behind a glaring "message editted by..." statement. you'd have to ignore the fact that im an administrator and could edit dave's posts. ... snif snif... thats right. conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
But when the cops make money every time to convenience store gets robbed ... doesn't that kinda make you think? Oh, well. I guess it takes a lot to make people think. * * * * * Point #1: Le Figaro. Yep, those French don't dig us screwing around in the Middle East, that's true. But boy, it's absolutely inconceivable that a government would lie, isn't it? Your argument is predicated on the "divine right" of the government, and your trust that they will not lie. You can't go distrusting the French and then putting so much blind faith in our own government. Either governments are to be absolutely trusted, or they're not. * * * * * From your second article, Dave: quote:
Last week, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee questioned Air Force Gen. Richard Myers about why the fighters hadn’t been able to get airborne sooner. Myers, since confirmed as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed out that far fewer aircraft have been detailed to watch for attacking planes since the end of the Cold War.
Senate: "So why didn't your planes get airborne when they were supposed to?"
Myers: "Ummm ... uh ... lack of defense spending! Yeah! We feul our planes with money, see. It's those damn liberals ... they didn't give us enough money to stuff into the gas tanks. That's it."
Ah, yes, I see now. Underfunded planes fly slower. Why didn't I see that before?
* * * * *
My source for the surveillance bit is, as I noted, CNN. Figured you wouldn't want to argue with CNN. That's like kicking the Pope, only not as funny.
* * * * *
Even by the leanest indicators that an investigation is warranted -- means, motive and opportunity -- the Shrub has got to be at the top of the list. As "President," he has the means and the opportunity. As an Oil Boy, he has the motive.
You guys crack me up. You'll go on and on about "survival of the fittest" and "it's human nature for the strong to conquer the weak." But when it comes time to take a critical look at the people in charge, you suddenly defend them as though they were small, fluffy bunnies, harmless and beyond reproach. No, suddenly it becomes impossible that people in our own government would do anything so sneaky or underhanded as killing a few thousand of its own citizens to build up motivation for a profit-earning war ... as though that very thing hasn't happened over and over again in history.
I appreciate the effort to keep me honest, Dave.
But I wanna hear you guys say it out loud (or type it, as the case may be), just for fun.
Tell me that there isn't a pipeline going through Afghanistan.
Tell me that the Shrub would never let innocent people die to make a buck.
I just wanna see if that's where you guys are coming from. If so, any further discussion will be moot ... you're already lost to the dark side.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
I thought I'd never say this but, Dave Wins!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
Now there is an axis of evil if I've ever seen one - bsams and I on the same side of something. quote:
Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
But when the cops make money every time to convenience store gets robbed ... doesn't that kinda make you think?
Oh, well. I guess it takes a lot to make people think.
Cops get paid without an incentive scheme. So even your parallel fails.
* * * * *
Point #1: Le Figaro. Yep, those French don't dig us screwing around in the Middle East, that's true. But boy, it's absolutely inconceivable that a government would lie, isn't it?
Your argument is predicated on the "divine right" of the government, and your trust that they will not lie. You can't go distrusting the French and then putting so much blind faith in our own government. Either governments are to be absolutely trusted, or they're not.
Your argument on the other hand is predicated that governments will go out of their way to deceive. My argument is supported by the fact that Western democratic governments are for the most part open and accountable. So I start from the basis that they're telling thetruth - which if nothing else is supported by the fact that if the "truth" ever came to light, they'd be in a pile of shit that would collapse the American republic, without any doubt (the tyranny clause of your constitution would certainly kick in).
And I'm not distrusting the French government, which is what you suggest - I'm distrusting the single French secret service man who had a friend at Le Figaro.
Even if you could come up with some corroboration, which you haven't (not suprisingly, because we'd have heard about it from the press before it came from you), you'd recall the Iran-Contra Scandal. Rogue elements of the US government do crazy shit from time to time. Even if a member of the CIA had met OBL prior to the attacks, what of it? Does this represent a policy formulated at the highest levels of government, or the machinations of, say, an Army Ranger colonel playing his own game?
You are mounting a slippery slop argument - a false logic chain projecting causality, which says that if one thing happened (the US govt has acting in ways in the past which meant at that time it couldn't be trusted), another thing will happen (the US govt will do it again) and therefore another thing will happen (the US govt conspired to blow up the WTC). Its garbage debating, sorry (most commnly seen used by those people who think smoking marijuana "automatically" leads to harder drugs).
* * * * *
From your second article, Dave:
quote:
Last week, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee questioned Air Force Gen. Richard Myers about why the fighters hadn’t been able to get airborne sooner. Myers, since confirmed as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed out that far fewer aircraft have been detailed to watch for attacking planes since the end of the Cold War.
Senate: "So why didn't your planes get airborne when they were supposed to?"
Myers: "Ummm ... uh ... lack of defense spending! Yeah! We feul our planes with money, see. It's those damn liberals ... they didn't give us enough money to stuff into the gas tanks. That's it."
Ah, yes, I see now. Underfunded planes fly slower. Why didn't I see that before?
You are distorting the report for your own purposes. In logical debate, this is called a strawman argument - you skew the words into something that wasn't said or wasn't meant to suit your own purposes.
Here, you jackknifed from arguing, "why weren't the planes there?" (rebutted by my source, the point not conceded by you - which shows a lack of style, but anyway) to the strawman, "We have less planes on alert since the end of the Cold War => Our planes are underfueled, under-funded and slower". That's not what he said at all. Given the Russians are no longer a threat, its a reasonable response from Myers.
Now, if you were able to find evidence of planes doing slow circles, you'd be more credible. But you can't - those planes were in the air, and were only minutes late.
* * * * *
My source for the surveillance bit is, as I noted, CNN. Figured you wouldn't want to argue with CNN. That's like kicking the Pope, only not as funny.
Which shows you didn't read what I said. Go and re-read the fact that I think the CNN has a pro-American bias. I think al Jazeera is more objective on Arab issues, personally.
* * * * *
Even by the leanest indicators that an investigation is warranted -- means, motive and opportunity -- the Shrub has got to be at the top of the list. As "President," he has the means and the opportunity. As an Oil Boy, he has the motive.
I prefer the more straightforward explanation, using the logical tool called Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor effective means you carve off the unnecessary shit from the argument to reach the most straightforward conlcusion possible (usually used to disprove God's existence) A bunch of guys with a bit of cash hate the idea that the US is blindly backing the Israelis because of pressure from the Israeli lobby in Washington, and hate the idea that there are American, infidel troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia not far from Medina and Mecca. So they attack in the only way they can. There is a much more straight forward explanation that the convoluted insupportable one you have described.
You guys crack me up. You'll go on and on about "survival of the fittest" and "it's human nature for the strong to conquer the weak." But when it comes time to take a critical look at the people in charge, you suddenly defend them as though they were small, fluffy bunnies, harmless and beyond reproach. No, suddenly it becomes impossible that people in our own government would do anything so sneaky or underhanded as killing a few thousand of its own citizens to build up motivation for a profit-earning war ... as though that very thing hasn't happened over and over again in history.
I appreciate the effort to keep me honest, Dave.
But I wanna hear you guys say it out loud (or type it, as the case may be), just for fun.
Tell me that there isn't a pipeline going through Afghanistan.
Sure there is. Commercial opportunism. Welcome to capitalism, Afghanistan.
Tell me that the Shrub would never let innocent people die to make a buck.
What evidence do you have that he would?
I just wanna see if that's where you guys are coming from. If so, any further discussion will be moot ... you're already lost to the dark side.
On the contrary, you're lost in a spooky plane of no-logic, where shadows become real and looking up means you're staring at the ground.
I've alerted you to the logic flaws in your argument, so you can think about them and overcome them if you can. I've told you about how your argument isn't supprted by sources or evidence, and you failed to address that entirely. You're not credible. I am broaded minded enough to always be willing to be convinced by anything - I'm hardly a knee jerk patriot, nor a Republican (hard to be either since I'm not an American) - but you've failed entirely to do that.
Shit now I'm running late - I'll fix typos later.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
dave's ubb strugglin continues.
i bet he's smokin oil!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
Jack admits defeat, film at eleven!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
maybe he wants us to believe that.
ever think about it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
dave's ubb strugglin continues.
i bet he's smokin oil!
Hash oil? Now you're talking.
I'm hoping Jack will come back and argue some more. I'm counting on him relying upon a report from the Malaysian secret service that the CIA sent an e-mail to the FBI telling them, on the basis of photos obtained from the Malaysians, two members of al Qaeda were not to enter the US - but again the FBI fucked up. One of the guys even got his visa renewed by US officials in Saudi Arabia because the FBI didn't act on the info.
Now, this is just more evidence as to what a bunch of dipshits the FBI are (and the CIA - who sends this sort of stuff by e-mail?), but I'm sure Jack will use this to back his "the government engineered the deaths of 4000 New Yorkers to help oil companies" theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
he'll be back.
he's a good guy -- i've just never in my life encountered someone so desperate for an undercover scandal and deep-rooted conspiracy of sorts; willing to tie any/everything together, however loosely, in the process -- not unlike the later seinfeld episodes.
he makes TTT seem like a mere x-files fan.
|
|
|
|
|
