babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Questioning 9/11: effectively disallowed in Canadian society

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Questioning 9/11: effectively disallowed in Canadian society
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 19 April 2007 09:17 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is a follow up to the thread:Green candidate believes 9/11 conspiracy theories

quote:
Stockholm:
I'm not going to bother responding to absurd conspiracy theories. To even get into an argue is to give them more credence than they deserve.

quote:
jrootham:
Ok, it's official. You ARE a self described ignorant fool.

Stockholm shows a really open mind. And jrootham, I don't care what names you call me.

It's not surprising that it's mostly Americans who are TRULY questioning what happened on that day.


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 19 April 2007 09:20 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Have either of you, Stockholm or jrootham, watched the documentary "Loose Change" on Google video?

quote:
Stockholm posted:
I'm not going to bother responding to absurd conspiracy theories. To even get into an argue is to give them more credence than they deserve. It would be like trying to argue that the world is round and not flat.

You might recall that it took a while for the mainstream to accept that the world is round. And that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth.

I'm beginning to feel empathy for Galileo.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 19 April 2007 11:17 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You have the right to invent whatever wild theories you want about the events of that day. Just don't expect anyone to pay you any mind.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 April 2007 11:34 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, because the hawks are guilty of far, far worse than just criminal negligence leading up to 9-11.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680

posted 20 April 2007 07:29 AM      Profile for Michael Nenonen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Yes, because the hawks are guilty of far, far worse than just criminal negligence leading up to 9-11.


Amen.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 April 2007 07:34 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you honestly think that the US staged 9/11 and that all the people who disappeared on those planes are now living in seclusion on a south sea island - why would the US not have planted WMD in Iraq??? Surely that would have been like taking candy from a baby in comparison.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 20 April 2007 07:41 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If you honestly think that the US staged 9/11 and that all the people who disappeared on those planes are now living in seclusion on a south sea island - why would the US not have planted WMD in Iraq??? Surely that would have been like taking candy from a baby in comparison.

This is the problem with the 'anyone questioning is a lunatic' crowd, you take the wildest, craziest of all of the theories floated out there and use that strawman to try to remove any sort of credibility from discussion.

I call into question all of YOUR sanities by believing this government who has a repeated pattern of lying about almost everything.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 April 2007 07:45 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've said many times before that I don't doubt at all that the US government probably covered up its incompetencies around what happened that day. But that is a far cry from believing in these quacks who think that the US hired the Mossad to stage Sept. 11 and that all the Jews who worked at the WTC got a call not to come to work that day etc... (sorry to dissappoint the tinfoil hat brigade, but many Jews were in the WTC on that day and died - I guess they didn't pick up the phone that morning).

Similarly, I agree that the Allies were willfully ignorant of the the Holocaust and didn't do much to prevent it (ie: by bombing Auschwitz) - but that is a far cry from believing Holocaust deniers like Ernst Zundel who claim that it never took place at all.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 20 April 2007 08:06 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am not name calling, I'm accusing you of incompetence, there's a difference.

Why am I doing this?

To defend the credibility of babble. If there are threads which uncritically swallow reality distortions on the same order (or worse) than Stockwell Day thinking man walked with the dinosaurs then those threads could be used to attack the credibility of babble in other areas. This way the damage might be limited to the credibility of posters.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 20 April 2007 09:26 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I've said many times before that I don't doubt at all that the US government probably covered up its incompetencies around what happened that day.

What about them knowing an attack would take place and purposefully not defending against it? Does that fall under your category of "things to be dismissed and ridiculed"?

If true, it would be more than incompetence, and would mean that they would have successfully pulled off a huge mass murder of the people they were sworn to protect. Don't you think this bears investigating?


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 April 2007 09:39 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What about them knowing an attack would take place and purposefully not defending against it?

I think that is 100% absurd. I am willing to believe that they might have had "warnings" and have made the mistake of not taking them seriously enough - and there are false alarms all the time. But if they did know, what not stage a dramatic, death-defying foiling of the plot - then Bush's popularity could have soared and there would have been more than enough pretext to attack Afghanistan.

Quite frankly, if we had all heard a rumour on September 10, 2001 that 19 Islamic terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into the WTC and the Pentagon - I guarantee you that people who post on bable would have been the FIRST ones to dismiss it as being too ridiculously far-fetrched to be worth taking seriously.

[ 20 April 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 20 April 2007 10:20 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think that is 100% absurd. I am willing to believe that they might have had "warnings" and have made the mistake of not taking them seriously enough - and there are false alarms all the time. But if they did know, what not stage a dramatic, death-defying foiling of the plot - then Bush's popularity could have soared and there would have been more than enough pretext to attack Afghanistan.

So it is completely impossible, absolutely could not under any circumstances have happened... because you figure catching a terrorist attack would be worth more politically than allowing one.

Well, I disagree. Clinton's administration foiled terrorist plots and never received the kind of capital that Bush did. See, catching terrorists makes people feel safe, but letting the attacks happen makes them feel scared, and I think we can all agree that the Bush administration had a simple formula for success. Scare people, then control them.

Besides, letting the attack commence doesn't have to BE the most effective strategy for them. We only need cause to think they BELIEVED this was the case to suspect the possibility, and we know for a fact they did. The PNAC papers state plainly that they believed that an event of this magnitude would be necessary to enact their agenda, so clearly they thought an attack carried out was worth more than one foiled. In other words, they disagreed with your analysis.

Now if they knew an attack was coming (which I think they must have, given all the warnings. I don't believe they are that incompetent) and they believed that such an attack was needed "to do what has to be done", it is such a simple matter to just arrange for there to be no defense when the attack inevitably strikes. And we saw that there was no defense, for reasons that still aren't clear to anybody.

I can't imagine how you think this doesn't bear investigation. Once more: we have a group who is on record as saying that a huge disaster is needed to enact their agenda, they receive numerous warnings of just such a potential disaster, which they ignore. When the disaster strikes, somehow none of the normal protocols for averting disaster are followed, and nobody knows why. The attack succeeds and the group starts enacting the agenda they wrote about needing a disaster to justify. Is this such a leap for you? To me, it barely even qualifies as a conspiracy, it's so obvious.

That's not to say that this DID happen. I don't know what happened. That's WHY you have investigations. These are merely "things that make you go hmm", that lead to the theories that investigations try to prove or disprove. But to be faced with this, and say it doesn't bear looking into? I just don't get it.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 April 2007 10:41 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So why not plant WMD in Iraq? That would have been sooooo simple and would have saved Bush and Co. and gigantic amount of grief.

the thing is that the impact of 9/11 was so gigantic - socially, economically etc... that there is no way that anyone could have had any confidence that it would have worked out to the benefit of the "US neo-con" agenda.

Of course ANYTHINg is possible. maybe, Alexander Dubcek was really a KGB agent who "staged" the Prague Spring in order to give Brezhnev and excuse to invade Czechoslovakia and flex some Soviet muscle.

Maybe Hitler was actually a CIA agent who attacked Russia in a half-baked plan to defeat Communism.

This whole string began because this lunatic fringe ex-Green Party candidate in vancouver bragged about how excited and happy he was to see the twin towers collapse. If he believes that 9/11 was a US conspiracy, i guess he must be totally pro-American and that's why he was so happy to see the US conspiracy succeed!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Abdul_Maria
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11105

posted 20 April 2007 12:28 PM      Profile for Abdul_Maria     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
You have the right to invent whatever wild theories you want about the events of that day. Just don't expect anyone to pay you any mind.

who said anything about wild theories ? like the term conspiracy theory, a linguistic term.

more like, boring facts.

if you wanted to, you could read about the dozens verging on hundreds of different warnings that the US government received in the months prior to 9-11.

so they let it happen on purpose.

for those that are afraid to think about 9-11, how about thinking about part of it.

the timeline
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

little incidents like (SF Mayor) Willie Brown and Salman Rushdie receiving "do not fly" warning messages in the days prior to 9-11.

can the people who use the term "wild theory" to refer to 9-11 refute any of the reports of warnings (of an imminent terrorist attack involving flying planes into buildings) that are compiled at Cooperative Research ?

granted, some of the concepts broached in the name of "9-11 truth" are wild; the holograph airplanes flying into the building comes to mind.

back to the real world - it is unusual (very) for buildings to collapse at 99% of the speed of freefall - unless they have been demolished.

the Twin Towers contained about 300,000 tons of concrete. most of it turned to dust before it hit the ground. it takes a lot of energy to pulverize concrete into dust. drop a concrete slab off a building so that it can reach a terminal velocity before striking the ground; it will break into pieces. it will not turn into dust on the way down.

but that's what happened when the towers fell.


From: San Fran | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 20 April 2007 12:35 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But that is a far cry from believing in these quacks who think that the US hired the Mossad to stage Sept. 11 and that all the Jews who worked at the WTC got a call not to come to work that day etc... (sorry to dissappoint the tinfoil hat brigade, but many Jews were in the WTC on that day and died - I guess they didn't pick up the phone that morning).

Yes its all about the Jews, Stockholm. Seems like youre just using that theory as a strawman. Yet it wasnt in the Loose Change or elsewhere..

There are many other 9/11 theories which don't involve Mossad.
Yawn


From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 April 2007 12:36 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe the Japanese actually bombed Hiroshima to give themselves a face saving way to end WW2 and get the US to invest trillions of dollars in reparations!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 20 April 2007 12:59 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It could be worse - at least he's learned not to joke about the holocaust.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 April 2007 01:01 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, I return to my earlier question. If the Americans staged 9/11, why would they not have planted WMD in Iraq - that would have been ridiculously easy in comparison.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
clandestiny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6865

posted 20 April 2007 01:22 PM      Profile for clandestiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What if you're wrong? If we're wrong, who cares....bush should be hanged for treason anyway. Did you know 911 postponed, and totally overshadowed, the NORC results (which actual give the numbers of Gore's 2k election win) which were to be published in mid Sept/01? Did you realize flight 587 inexplicably blew apart after takeoff in NY on Nov 11/01, the very morning that the NORC results WERE finally published? (and pushed to back pages by the airplane disaster)...the deaths of nearly 300 people (mostly from Dom. Republic, iow not kkk white) gave mediawhores freedom to repeatedly lie about the NORC results, though within a year of their publication Jay Leno and David Lettermen were actually making jokes with the punchline that bush lost the 2k election....
>snip
In the case of Flight 587, which crashed, coincidentally the same day as the NORC Florida recount results were released, there are many eyewitnesses to the incident who have accused the NTSB of ignoring their accounts solely because they swear they witnessed two explosions before the tailpiece sheared off. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe they're right but the NTSB wants no part of their accounts. Why not? And why was NTSB Chairwoman Marion Blakey so sure only mere hours after the crash that it was an accident instead of terrorism? Even before the recovery of the Flight Data Boxes?
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5603

From: the canada's | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 April 2007 01:26 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So if Bush blew up a plane with over 300 people aborad, just to reduce how much publicity the NORC report got - WHY NOT PLANT WMD IN IRAQ?????
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 20 April 2007 01:52 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
So, I return to my earlier question. If the Americans staged 9/11, why would they not have planted WMD in Iraq - that would have been ridiculously easy in comparison.

It's a very good question and one that I don't have the answer to. The thing is that your question presupposes that 9/11 was some how orchestrated by the US and despite what some people here are convinced of right now, it's far from certain at this point.

What is certain though, is that the forensics of the 9/11 collapse are in question, and although I'm not an expert on the subject, I am open-minded enough to at least listen to the claims that the way the buildings collapsed don't make any sense and that that there is reason to at least suspect that the buildings were blown up. The trouble is, how likely is it that an entire building could be rigged with explosives and there is no trace of it left? From what I've heard, the clean up really destroyed a lot of evidence that could have proven or disproven that scenario, but even if that wasn't the case, wouldn't there be records somewhere that would show a large amount of explosives being funneled into a single location?

What about the building staff? Wouldn't they have noticed?

So many questions!


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 20 April 2007 02:04 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't attribute to malfeance what can be explained by general incompetence.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
clandestiny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6865

posted 20 April 2007 03:04 PM      Profile for clandestiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Maybe the Japanese actually bombed Hiroshima to give themselves a face saving way to end WW2 and get the US to invest trillions of dollars in reparations!

Stock, your head is gonna explode! (If you think the depravity of the 'great game' players was exxagerated by some of us before, using 911 as litmus test of our wide eyed gullibility for that nonsense, then what must you think of this?)
-----------------
taken from Gore Vidal’s ‘Dreaming War, Blood For Oil and the Bush-Cheney Junta pg 77/78:

“…But let me quote from a letter by the historian Kai Bird, which, to my amazement, the New York Times published (usually they suppress anything too critical of themselves or their Opinion makers):
‘Twice the reviewer dismisses as “silly’ Vidal’s assertion that Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was unnecessary because Japan had been trying for some months to surrender.
Such assertions are neither silly nor….a product of Vidal’s ‘cranky politics’ Rather Vidal has cleverly drawn on a rich and scholarly literature published in the last decade to remind his readers that much of what orthodox court historians have written about the Cold War was simply wrong. With regard to Hiroshima, perhaps Vidal had in mind Truman’s July 1945 handwritten diary reference to a ‘telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace’”

------
the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki were war crimes of unbearable cruelty; and the very horror of it makes society turn away in revulsion today. 911 was nothing, a bad fx movie where all the props were under control of the rightwing MIC, or whoever thought having junyer bush as prez was a ' real hoot'... and the bush gang did try to plant WMD's in Iraq, but the planters got caught; 15 were slaughtered by regular US troops, and the details have been memory holed. (Surely someone here can recall the news reports of 'cia team' back in '03/'04 (?) that somehow tripped some wire and got wiped out?)


From: the canada's | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 April 2007 04:12 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As long as we are on the topic of ridiculous conspiracy theories. How do we know that "the Jews" didn't "stage" the Holocaust on purpose in order to gain world sympathy for the creation of Israel?

Anything is possible.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 20 April 2007 05:29 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
It could be worse - at least he's learned not to joke about the holocaust.

From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 20 April 2007 10:05 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have to figure some of this nonsense is enabled by a misunderstanding of how steel behaves under failure. I think some posters are thinking of how wood fails and applying that to how the towers fell.

Steel is homongenous, wood is not. Steel doesn't splinter and sag like wood, it behaves more like glass under failure. Cracks propagate at the speed of sound after they have reached a critical length.

The buildings behaved rather like Oliver Wendell Holmes "Wonderful One Hoss Shea", all components getting close to failure and then one going past it triggered a general collapse.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 20 April 2007 10:14 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Maybe the Japanese actually bombed Hiroshima to give themselves a face saving way to end WW2 and get the US to invest trillions of dollars in reparations!

Hey! I think you're on to something there!

I wanna get me one of them tin foil hats, too. They sound better than drugs!!


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 20 April 2007 10:44 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
WHY NOT PLANT WMD IN IRAQ?????

you've made this exact same joke/point about 8 times now, I'm wondering why that might be. Is it supposed to get more interesting with repetition? Is it for anyone who missed your identical post an inch higher? Is it like a joke that gets funnier every time you hear it?


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 April 2007 11:04 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems to be the question no one can answer. I mean seriously, let's just suppose for an instant that the US "staged" 9/11 in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. If the US were that audacious and immoral - why not also plant WMD in Iraq to prove to the world that the invasion was justified. The lack of WMD in Iraq has cost the US very dearly.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 April 2007 11:50 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If the US were that audacious and immoral - why not also plant WMD in Iraq to prove to the world that the invasion was justified. The lack of WMD in Iraq has cost the US very dearly.

Why ?. The hawks and friends in the M-I complex are already "made" by the warfiteering in Iraq and massive hustle of American taxpayers. They scored! LARGE! And Cheney has already blamed the CIA for getting the taxpayers and corporate friends of the Republican Party into a costly war with Iraq, so the heat is supposedly off the crooked liars. It's all a charade. Two cosmetic governments later and they'll be at it again.

What's typical voter turnout in U.S. elections ?. They don't have to fool everybody, just enough of them.

[ 20 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 21 April 2007 12:17 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So deprived of your "it couldn't happen because foiling a plot would be better for them" argument, you're switching to "it couldn't happen because they would have planted WMD"?

So there is no possible world in all possible worlds in which they might simply fail to defend against a threat, creating their sought-after disaster, and also not find a credible way to plant WMD in Iraq? The possibility of this universe is so outrageous to you it nullifies the whole line of questioning and hence there is no need for an investigation into whether or not the WTC attacks were allowed to succeed. This is your reasoning.

Well, I have to say I don't agree. I don't know why WMD weren't planted in Iraq, but I have a strong suspicion that it wouldn't be nearly as easy as you think. Personally, I imagine that they figured it wasn't worth the risk to do it. The country and media were fully compliant around this period. I think they figured they could just bluff through the absence of WMD and it wouldn't matter. Which is what they did, and if the war had gone well, nobody would have cared.

But this is all conjecture. It really doesn't matter why something didn't happen in Iraq, because we were talking about why things did happen in the US. Why did the defense break down, and was it done intentionally for political gain?


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 April 2007 12:44 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I could see the hawks planting a few throw-down nukes if there had been something else at stake, Like the Democrats insisting that if they didn't find WMD, then the McDonnel-Douglas, Raytheon, Haliburton, Blackwater mercenaries and all those warfiteering bastards would have to pay all those hundreds of billions of dollars back to U.S. taxpayers. Or how about a clause next time that says the corporations donate services to the Pentagon for reconstruction in the case that no WMD are found ?.

Otherwise, why should they have to produce the goods now ?. Who's stopping them from warfiteering in the mean time ?. Parasites don't typically kill the host in one feeding. They have to allow the Democrats to put the books in order over at least the next six years or so before the MIC can go marauding into another resource-rich nation again. And they will.

ETA: The "throwdowns" were planted in Iraq way before 9-11 when Bush Sr. and Maggie Thatcher gave the A-OK for western corporations to arm Iraq(and their arch-enemies in the region) with the means to manufacture chemical and biological weapons for the war against Iran. Canada's Gerald Bull, a CIA pawn at the time, was selling weapons to Saddam as well. Saddam relied entirely on western corporations to arm Iraq for at least the first three years of the war with Iran, whom the shadow government was also supplying weapons at below cost in order to fund a dirty war in Central America, yes, a parallel proxy war waged by the largest nuclear superpower in the world against a nation of five million peasants in the 1980's. And this was over and above a multi-billion dollar proxy war waged against secular socialism in Afghanistan with bullets costing U.S. taxpayers five dollars apiece.

[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955

posted 21 April 2007 03:11 AM      Profile for Farmpunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It didn't matter whether there were WMDs in Iraq or not. I thought that was decided quite a while ago. Replaced with: removing a dictator, stopping potential terrorist training grounds, bringing stability and democracy to a land of eternal strife... And while in so deep, bury Pat Tillman with honour.

Evidence and understanding history have never been priorities of the Dubya years.


From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 21 April 2007 11:58 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyway, back on target. There desperately needs to be a full investigation into why the normal defenses of the US's skies failed to be implemented, and who is responsible. This investigation needs to take into account the very real possibility that the breakdown was intentional.

Are we all agreed?


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 April 2007 12:20 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with investigating whether there was total incompetence on the part of US authorities in not paying attention to warnings about 9/11. Though as i have pointed out before, if there had been US action to prevent a possible terrorist act on 9/11 involving 19 suicide bombers flying planes into buildings - I think it is fair to say that about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of people in the "progressive blogoshpere" would have dismissed it as absurdly far-fetched.

I can believe that the US security apparatus was asleep at the switch or made some very bad decisions.

I think that the notion that they purposely and knowing "let" 9/11 happen is 100% absurd and makes about as much sense as suggesting that the Jews "let" the Holocaust happen in order to help create Israel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 21 April 2007 12:34 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
double post-below

[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 21 April 2007 12:36 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Maybe the Japanese actually bombed Hiroshima to give themselves a face saving way to end WW2 and get the US to invest trillions of dollars in reparations!

This is also idiotic hyperbole (and, again, a variation of a joke you told what? four times?) and a none-too-subtle shift away from the questions being posed and towards an exagerrated and cartoonish POV, which, hey! presto!, is easier to refute.

Remember the Maddox? Remember the Maine? America has faked attacks on itself in order to trigger both the Spanish American and VietNam wars. Does this prove they did so on 9-11? Not a bit. Does it provide reasonable grounds/ precedent for students of history and international relations to at least investigate the possibility? Absolutely.

To suggest that The US stood down is very different from suggesting that they participated in the attacks. When the Arizona was blown up in Pearl Harbour with the loss of 1,000 lives it was already a 28 year old relic, made obsolete, save for shore bombardment, by the aircraft carrier. But its a lot different to say that FDR sat on a few crucial telegrams than to say it was the US Marines flying the zeros.

J Edgar Hoover hated black people, and MLK and malcolm X in particular. He made sure they had virtually no police protection, and that their murders were investigated with a minimum of effort. That is a fact. But its a far cry from saying his men pulled the trigger.

You dig?


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 April 2007 12:38 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The difference between 9/11 and things like the Gulf of Tonkin or the Maine or even Pearl Harbour is that 9/11 cost the US something like a trillion dollars, wiped out trillions in investments on the stock market and caused a recession in the US. If the American wanted to "let an attack" happen to give them a pretext to invade Iraq, they would have waited for something with far fewer consequences. They might have also created more of a paper trail leading to Iraq rather than to Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 21 April 2007 12:44 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
makes about as much sense as suggesting that the Jews "let" the Holocaust happen in order to help create Israel.

no, but the fairy tale that Britain and America suddenly grew sentimental and supported the creation of Israel because they cared about Jewish suffering is horseshit, too. They supported the founding of Israel because it meant the establishment of a country with a population forever dependant and loyal to US and British largesse. To the citizens of Israel it is a refuge from the persecutions they have suffered since the invasion by the psychotic Roman pig-culture 2,000 years ago, and its mutation into the psychotic catholic pig-culture which followed.

But to the US and the UK its just an airstrip pretending its a country


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 21 April 2007 12:47 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
wiped out trillions in investments on the stock market

With all due respect, and again you've made this ill-informed point seven times now, you dont know what you are talking about. Some stocks went down. But how about stocks which were moribund which exploded in value like Halliburton's? Raytheon's? ExxonMobil's? BP? Royal Dutch? Northrup Grumman............

[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 21 April 2007 12:52 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
9/11 cost the US something like a trillion dollars

The VietNam war cost a trillion dollars. The Iraq War cost a trillion dollars. Do you even have a point?

quote:
There desperately needs to be a full investigation into why the normal defenses of the US's skies failed to be implemented, and who is responsible. This investigation needs to take into account the very real possibility that the breakdown was intentional.
Are we all agreed?

Yes.

quote:
I agree with investigating whether there was total incompetence on the part of US authorities in not paying attention to warnings about 9/11. Though as i have pointed out before, if there had been US action to prevent a possible terrorist act on 9/11 involving 19 suicide bombers flying planes into buildings - I think it is fair to say that about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of people in the "progressive blogoshpere" would have dismissed it as absurdly far-fetched.

Your second point is irrelevant to the issue you discuss in the first.

I, for instance, despise the Jacobinian inclination of many on the progressive blogosphere, and on this board in particular, to believe that somehow by the truncation of everyone's rights the rights of the downtrodden will be magically enhanced, in a self-defeating exercise of eliminating rights which every oppressed segment of society has fought to gain as their birthright. Rights like the right to face ones accuser and the right to a fair trial. The right to be judged on the basis of your actions rather than as a sacrificial goat to rectify the inequities of the society and its past, and that these rights hold equally whether for the lowliest, richest, or most reviled of its members. Things people like Hannah Ahrendt and Simone de Beauvoir grieved over,ideas like: even Eichmann gets his day in court, ideas like: the elimination of one form of inequality does not imply the automatic elimination of all other inequalities. Even to take a position in difference to certain "retired soldiers who've done thier duty" (read your Latin if you catch my drift), on this board on any topic whatsoever is to be labeled divisive and disruptive by the high school clique mentality which grips the mods.

But your second point still does not justify the first.

[ sorry to multipost. got caught up and presumed there would be posts posted while I typed.it drives me crazy, too, especially on the Green thread ]

[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 21 April 2007 01:10 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The difference between 9/11 and things like the Gulf of Tonkin or the Maine or even Pearl Harbour is that 9/11 cost the US something like a trillion dollars, wiped out trillions in investments on the stock market and caused a recession in the US. If the American wanted to "let an attack" happen to give them a pretext to invade Iraq, they would have waited for something with far fewer consequences. They might have also created more of a paper trail leading to Iraq rather than to Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda.

As I can recall, a recession was already brewing in early 2001, therefore note the pathetic Bush approval rating pre-9/11. Yet that miraculously rebounded as he became the War president...

As for that Iraq set-up, it wasnt that difficult to organize,as we know in hindsight. The US hawks bought it anyway, assuming the war would be a cakewalk(remember that guy"cakewalk" Adelman?).

And you forget that the Afganistan pipeline seemed to be derailed at the time and the "awl" business was furious. Plus, like Brzezinski wrote in his book "The Grand Chessboard" control of Central Asia meant control of the world. Which doesnt necessarily mean that the entire Bush admin thought that way, yet invading Afghanistan was important to them.

(Edited to say:
Please no triple/double posts on such engaging threads,
Let other people post.)

[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: BetterRed ]


From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 April 2007 01:35 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
no, but the fairy tale that Britain and America suddenly grew sentimental and supported the creation of Israel because they cared about Jewish suffering is horseshit, too. They supported the founding of Israel because it meant the establishment of a country with a population forever dependant and loyal to US and British largesse.

FYI, the British strenuously opposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel and were regarded as ENEMIES of Israel in the early years. The UK foreign policy establish was full of "Arabists" in those days. You may recall that the Irgun and the Haganah were busy setting roadside bombs and blowing up British military HQ in the late 40s in order to drive the British out. The British were also intercepting any ships full of Holocaust survivors bound for Palestine and sending everyone on board to prison camps. The British took the attitude that since the Arabs had lots of oil and there were so many more of them than there were Jews, it was better for Britain to side with the Arabs.

The US was also very lukewarm about the creation of Israel and only recognized Israel once it was clear that it couldn't be prevented. They had similar concerns to the British about being on the wrong side of the Arabs.

In 1948, the two countries that were the biggest champions of creating Israel were ironically, France and the Soviet Union. Stalin, for all his vicious anti-semitism, bought into the stereotype that Jews were Communists and he fully expected Israel to become a Soviet client state. I'm not sure that the French motive was, but France was Israel's biggest supplier of weapons and fighter aircraft until the late 60s.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 April 2007 01:37 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
9-11 a windfall for the Republican cabal. Profit margins for ordinary capitalist ventures are said to run an average of 12 percent. Warfiteering, on the other hand, creates profit margins in excess of 50 percent to anywhere around 1000 percent. Corporate friends of the Republican cabal have very little business with the "free market." Carpet bombing an oil-rich nation had everything to do with warfiteering and crooked "production sharing agreements" for oil as a bonus if they can actually maintain the occupation.

The 9-11 hijackers were not Iraqi's and not even Afghani. In fact, there was so little evidence against the Hamburg cell that German courts could only hand down a maximum of four years to the masterminds due to flimsy evidence and suspect testimonies obtained under torture.

Saddam and his administration did possess knowledge and records of Iraq's dealings with western corporations which led to the buildup of chemical and biological weapons and even nuclear technology during the war with Iran. Warshington fully expected Tariq Aziz to turn on Saddam during the trial but surprisingly came to his defence. Iraqgate, the ensuing U.S.-led medieval siege on a desert nation, and the resultant warfiteering was all a meticulously orchestrated plot to wage economic warfare against a developing country and required much more scheming and plotting than anything alleged surrounding 9-11. We're being encouraged to think small and never to be curous about what's behind the largest curtain in the background wrt the U.S. shadow government, the military-energy industrial complex and its western friendlies.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 April 2007 01:43 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee, now that you put it that way, it was a total blunder by the American that they let the Berlin Wall come down and that they let Gorbachev take power in the Soviet Union. The military industrial complex never had it as good as when the Soviets were powerful, scary opponents and the Cold War rage. How did they manage to miscalculate so badly???
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 21 April 2007 01:44 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If the American wanted to "let an attack" happen to give them a pretext to invade Iraq, they would have waited for something with far fewer consequences.

Does the fact that you are postulating scenarios of them allowing attacks to succeed mean that you are admitting that this is a possibility? If so, then we're getting somewhere.

However, once again, I respectfully disagree with your analysis. The PNAC papers clearly state that they required a "pearl-harbour" like event. In other words, one that had very serious consequences indeed. An attack with few consequences, by their own admission, would not serve their purposes. At least, that's what they believed, which is the salient point.

And of course, you realise that costing the US money and lives means nothing to the criminals of the Bush administration. Once they had a pretext for war, they knew they would profit no matter what the expense of the attack was. It's not their money, after all.

So I still fail to see the logic behind your 100% refusal to admit the possibility that these attacks were intentionally allowed to succeed. Maybe you can go over it again?


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 21 April 2007 01:48 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As the joke says: How did the US know Iraq had WMDs?

They still have the receipt.

A History Of Oil is an interesting,and very funny and entertaining, look at the Iraq War. I didnt know, for instance,that while Britain was sending troops to France on the First Day of WWI, they were also sending 18 divisions to.....Tikrit. He makes some amusing points asking questions like: so, was anyone ever told about WWI in school being the War to Liberate Iraq? No? No one?

quote:
Gee, now that you put it that way, it was a total blunder by the American that they let the Berlin Wall come down and that they let Gorbachev take power in the Soviet Union. The military industrial complex never had it as good as when the Soviets were powerful, scary opponents and the Cold War rage. How did they manage to miscalculate so badly???

This is an asinine and patronizing view of the millions of people who courageously stood up to their governments tanks and soldiers in 1989-1991 (and 56, and 68, and 70, and 80) and defeated those governments through a historic outpouring of democratic will. It also betrays a remarkably undemocratic and simpleminded weltenshaaung where only states and Great Men exert any agency on the global stage.

What? Reagan won the Cold War? Please.

[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 21 April 2007 02:16 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
So I still fail to see the logic behind your 100% refusal to admit the possibility that these attacks were intentionally allowed to succeed. Maybe you can go over it again?

I think myself that's iffy for a couple of reasons. Surely someone knowing in part or completely what was going to occur would have leaked or blabbed. Secondly, there's no guarantee that public reaction in the US would have unfolded as it did. It's an extremely risky and audacious thing to do this and most politicians HATE that.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 April 2007 02:22 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's exactly it.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 21 April 2007 03:26 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But lots of criminal acts haven't come out, as Minke said in the last thread, from the Gulf of Tonkin incident to blowing up the USS Maine, noone even said much till well after the events when few remembered or cared anymore. No irrefutable first hand "proof" was proferred either, but maybe only because those who *might* be involved in any such criminal conspiracies from the planning stage are the ones least likely to admit it.

Dismissing all the unusual and still unexplained events on the presumption that such and things "just don't work that way in the real world" is just as weak as presuming that such breakdowns just "couldn't happen" without design. Both arguments seem to be making the dubious assumption that the government is one unified command structure, without various departments and actors who may have been just as uninformed as the rest of us. What my original question in the other was leading towards -not that I'm convinced of that either.

The Guardian article indicating that they wanted to go after the Taliban beforehand wasn't proof positive either, but it does fit in with what other MS sources (not in itself any proof of accuracy) mentioned before, and could be an important piece of the puzzle that still hasn't been followed up on. Iraq could very well have been an afterthought brought on by Bush for personal reasons and their failure to capture or kill bin Laden, as other MS journalists have suggested. Why anyone would bother demolishing these buildings directly, After they'd already been hit by passenger jets, is one scenario I'm not that interested in myself, but that's just me.

[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 April 2007 03:48 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The military industrial complex never had it as good as when the Soviets were powerful, scary opponents and the Cold War rage. How did they manage to miscalculate so badly???

Exactly. The hawks miss their cold war nemesis. They're running out of enemies to justify big budget spending on military. Gore Vidal said that there was a famous U.S. General who could be seen at cocktail parties around the world pumping up the red menace to be far more of a threat than what they actually were. Vidal said the Soviets stabbed the MIC in the back when they ceded the cold war. Oh well, the low point for taxpayer handouts was in 1996, and that frightened heads of KAOS into recruiting new enemies of freedom.

Footing the bills for for Keynesian-Militarism from 1938 to 2006 ?

U.S. Defence Budget Soars to Highest Levels Since WWII (Or, Who needs capitalism when there is socialism for the rich?)

[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
bohajal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11492

posted 21 April 2007 04:27 PM      Profile for bohajal   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Quite frankly, if we had all heard a rumour on September 10, 2001 that 19 Islamic terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into the WTC and the Pentagon (...) Stockholm

Repeat after me, Stockholm !

Islamic equals terrorists (3 times)
Islamic is bad (3 times)
Jewish is good (3 times)
Islam is bad (3 times)
Judaism is good (3 times)

If you insist on some associating, at least use the term "Islamist" you fuck'n asshole ! And don't lie about not knowing the difference, you rotten propagandist !


From: planet earth, I believe | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 April 2007 05:12 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ya Stockholmer, what's with the slam on Islam ?.
The CIA didn't flinch at bin Laden's or Hekmatyar's religious affiliations once upon a time. Who were the hijackers, and who was guiding them in their jihad against the west ?. Or did they all just decide to meet online one day and later plot 9-11 on a napkin at Starbucks ?. Who was funding this terror operation ? Anyway ?.

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 21 April 2007 05:24 PM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And this whole tedious thread's solely the offshoot of a disallowed Green-candidate dipstick...yawn.
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 21 April 2007 05:41 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Surely someone knowing in part or completely what was going to occur would have leaked or blabbed.

I'm not saying they had to know exactly what was going to happen, and when, and under what circumstances. All they had to know was that there would be an attack and that it would involve planes. Then they could dismantle the normal protocol for such an event, and wait for it to occur. We now know that many such warnings did in fact reach these people. The official story is that they were ignored, but they could have just as well heeded the warnings with great interest, meticulously not defending against them. There's nothing to leak or blab in this scenario. Do you think the CIA run to the press every time a warning of a terrorist threat crosses their desk? No, they pass the information along and assume that the proper measures are being taken.

After the fact, there has been a lot of blabbing about the warnings, with the assumption that they were ignored. But given that the people who supposedly ignored them were hoping for just such a disaster, and given that the normal protocols for averting disaster, which should operate with or without sanction from the white house, mysteriously broke down, I think it would be the height of foolishness to not even consider the possibility that they allowed the disaster to occur.

Again, I'm not saying it happened. How would I know that? I'm saying it needs to be investigated. I don't understand how any rational person can think otherwise.

quote:
Secondly, there's no guarantee that public reaction in the US would have unfolded as it did. It's an extremely risky and audacious thing to do this and most politicians HATE that.

Most politicians do, but these ones? The ones who charged into Iraq despite the objections of the entire world? The ones who thought they could manage the war with their streamlined, corporate thinking? The ones who postured themselves as the only force capable of protecting America despite the fact that it was they themselves who had been in charge during the biggest security breakdown in the history of the country? I'll have to disagree with you here. If there are any words that describe these people, they are risky and audacious. Remember, they're not really politicians. They're CEOs. They took over the US like they would take over any corporation and their actions clearly showed they believed (wrongly) that they could stage-manage any turn of events, no matter how unfortunate. Risky and audacious is written all over them.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 April 2007 08:38 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And another thing...if Bush and Co. knew in advance that 9/11 was going to happen, surely Bush could have arranged to look more decisive and hands on that to be stuck reading "My Pet Goat" to pre-schoolers and then getting a deer caught in headlights expression.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 21 April 2007 08:51 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does he ever stop having that expression?

Like I said, it isn't necessary to my scenario that they knew all the exact details of what would occur. Bush might have been just as freaked out to realise that the risky and audacious plan they had concocted was coming to fruition, as he would have been to be actually caught flat-footed by a unexpected attack.

It seems to me that your objections are becoming increasingly more desperate, Stockholm. I've given my response to every rationalisation you've thrown up. Does the fact that you haven't responded in turn, but instead keep bringing up different objections and dropping the old ones, mean that you're admitting your arguments have no merit?


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 21 April 2007 09:15 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by adma:
And this whole tedious thread's solely the offshoot of a disallowed Green-candidate dipstick...yawn.

I enjoy your content-free non-sequiturs, regardless of where you post them. So easy, tied up in a plastic package. Like something your dog would make.


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 April 2007 09:15 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not a question of being "desperate". How does one disprove an utterly absurd hypothesis. Its not up to me to "prove" that the American did not knowingly let 9/11. Its up to you to prove that they did. Until someone can come up with an eye witness or an insider who is prepared to swear under oath that Bush, Cheney and the entire US security apparatus made a calculated decision to let 9/11 happen because they WANTED it to happen - there is nothing to discuss. Nobody has to prove a null hypothesis.

Why don't you PROVE to me that Japan didn't knowingly let Hiroshima get bombed?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 April 2007 09:17 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
surely Bush could have arranged to look more decisive and hands on that to be stuck reading "My Pet Goat" to pre-schoolers and then getting a deer caught in headlights expression.

He was actually reading from a Little Orphan Annie comic strip, and just when reading aloud the part where Daddy Warbucks says,

"Some have called me dirty capitalist, but I've merely ...", a secret service agent burst in and stepped on kiddies hands and feet to screams of fear, and he whispered in Dubya's ear, "Mister president, sir, the eagle has landed."

At which point Dubya puts on his best hear no evil monkey face for the camera. The smirking chimp was actually thinking to himself, What would old Prescott do ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 22 April 2007 12:15 AM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
I am not name calling, I'm accusing you of incompetence, there's a difference.

Galileo, he was persecuted for being incompetent.


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 22 April 2007 12:16 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That wasn't what I was saying Stockholm. I'm saying the subject needs investigating. You have strongly disagreed, saying the premise is 100% absurd, but so far I find no logical basis for such a strong belief. I'm asking you to explain it to me, and pointing out that your explanations so far have been very weak. You do have reasons for having the opinions you do, correct?

Let's take it from the top. This is what you've given me so far:

They'd get more advantage from stopping an attack than letting one succeed.

If they let the attack succeed, they would have necessarily also planted WMD in Iraq.

If they let the attack succeed, somebody would have said something beforehand.

It's too risky a move for politicians to do.

If they let the attack succeed, then Bush wouldn't have sat in that classroom with a dumb look on his face.

Now, I've already made cogent and comprehensive responses to all these, explaining either why the point is wrong, or why it in no way justifies being 100% certain that this couldn't happen, nor do any of them, taken as a whole or in part, negate the suspicious nature of the whole affair. You haven't answered any of these responses. I am inferring from this that you don't have any clear, rational basis for these strong, 100% certain beliefs. That they are knee-jerk, as the saying goes. Purely emotional and not at all logical.

Maybe you don't care what I think, but if you're going to convince me that there is some rational basis for your absolute refusal to even consider this possibility, you're going to have to start giving me arguments, rather than rants.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 22 April 2007 12:58 AM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
...I'm accusing you of incompetence...To defend the credibility of babble. This way the damage might be limited to the credibility of posters.

Gee thanks but...methinks the credibility of babble depends first and foremost on its willingness to let free speech reign. Let posters defend their own credibility. And then let readers read those rebuttals. Who the f*ck do you think you are, some big daddy?

Babble is a Speaker's Corner in an electronic Hyde Park. Unlike the real Speaker’s Corner, it has fewer physical/temporal limits, including a global reach. Babble’s strength is that its moderators allow a large range of views to be aired by people getting up on their virtual soapboxes and speaking. If no one wants to listen to what someone else has to say, fine. The speaker should still be allowed to continually mount that soapbox and rant to an audience of zero. The point being, the RIGHT to speak to that audience of zero should not be taken away. When babble starts doing that, all will be lost.

Of course, there are limits to free speech, and FYI, I am not trolling. If you think I am, then it’s stemming from your own defensiveness, not from any intention on my part to waste someone’s time. The opinions I have voiced are well within the range of babble guidelines. I am inciting no one to violence nor libelling anyone. I am asking for people to look closer into an important event, as there is enough evidence to warrant a much closer look.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 22 April 2007 01:21 AM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Joshua Kubinec:
What is certain though, is that the forensics of the 9/11 collapse are in question, and although I'm not an expert on the subject, I am open-minded enough to at least listen to the claims that the way the buildings collapsed don't make any sense and that that there is reason to at least suspect that the buildings were blown up. The trouble is, how likely is it that an entire building could be rigged with explosives and there is no trace of it left? From what I've heard, the clean up really destroyed a lot of evidence that could have proven or disproven that scenario, but even if that wasn't the case, wouldn't there be records somewhere that would show a large amount of explosives being funneled into a single location?

What about the building staff? Wouldn't they have noticed?

So many questions!


The building staff and many of the people who worked in the towers, did in fact report irregular closures of the buildings in the lead up to the event.

And don't forget, NOT TWO BUT THREE WTC TOWERS COLLAPSED ON 9/11/01, all in a similar manner.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 22 April 2007 01:51 AM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
The buildings behaved rather like Oliver Wendell Holmes "Wonderful One Hoss Shea", all components getting close to failure and then one going past it triggered a general collapse.

"All components getting close to failure" due to relatively short fires.

"A general collapse" that happened at near free-fall speed (shall I mention Galileo again?).

"A general collapse" that occurred in NOT TWO BUT THREE WTC TOWERS.

(I didn't know OWH was a structural engineer as well. My, what a talented man!)


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 22 April 2007 02:39 AM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well-said and worth repeating:
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
Remember the Maddox? Remember the Maine? America has faked attacks on itself in order to trigger both the Spanish American and VietNam wars. Does this prove they did so on 9-11? Not a bit. Does it provide reasonable grounds/ precedent for students of history and international relations to at least investigate the possibility? Absolutely.

Regardless of which particular details one finds most questionable, the point is there is a LOT to be questioned. That is, if questioning 9/11 is allowed.


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 April 2007 06:20 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now, I've already made cogent and comprehensive responses to all these, explaining either why the point is wrong, or why it in no way justifies being 100% certain that this couldn't happen,

So how can you be 100% certain that Elvis isn't alive, that the Japanese didn't secretely bomb Hiroshima, that the world is round and not flat, that a man actually walked on the moon and it wasn't all staged in a Hollywood studio...

As I have said, I am perfectly willing to see investigations done into why US intelligence might have made mistakes and failed to stop 9/11 from happening. In fact there has already been a congressional investigation into this that showed all kinds of incompetence. But until you can find me ONE person out of the hundreds who must be out there, who will testify that they were privy to a conspiracy to purposely let 9/11 happen, I consider it to be absurd and beyond the realm of possibility.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 22 April 2007 06:55 AM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well you're also apparently of the mind that all the facts of the official account of 9/11 fit together perfectly and logically.

This alone demonstrates inability, ETA: failure, to apply logic and reason, so why would anyone care about what you think about the rest?

I think 'knee-jerk emotional reaction' is more to the point.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: jas ]


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 22 April 2007 07:13 AM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry I'm not sure, Stockholm, are you arguing that the earth is round or flat?

quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
But until you can find me ONE person out of the hundreds who must be out there, who will testify that they were privy to a conspiracy to purposely let 9/11 happen, I consider it to be absurd and beyond the realm of possibility.

Why insist on finding a person who would be most unlikely to speak? Aren't the myriad large chunks of suspicious physical and circumstantial evidence enough reason to just start questioning the Official Conspiracy Theory?

quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
WHY NOT PLANT WMD IN IRAQ?????

The PNAC people are probably asking a version of your WMD question to themselves every day now, in much the same tone as yours. (WHY DIDN'T WE PLANT WMD IN IRAQ?????) Certainly, doing so would have helped the Bush-Cheney cabal. And I agree with you (wow!) that if they could have pulled off 9/11/01, then they could have and should have more easily planted WMD in Iraq.

But you are taking this probability and painting it as a certainty. The WTC incident happened a continent and ocean away from Iraq. Why not deal with the evidence around 9/11 on its own?

And let’s deal with Elvis, Hiroshima, the Apollo 11 landing, Roswell and whatever else in separate threads, OK? You go ahead and start the threads, I’ll meet you there, really I will.


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
clandestiny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6865

posted 22 April 2007 08:07 AM      Profile for clandestiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The fact is that the 2k election was stolen. By a vast rightwing conspiracy (see 'up from conservativism, 'blinded by the right' 'strange justice' 'the hunting of the president' the PNAC and '1984' for just a few examinations of the RW's publicised intentions)...for some reason, the 'coup' is joked about, by Leno/Letterman and lots of others, but it concerned THE OVERTHROW OF THE LEGAL GOVERNMENT OF USA! Still we argue about an incident which empowered those criminals who had no legal authority in the first place, and avoid answering to that fact by stirring up contentious 911 debates when other distractions like Iraq etc aren't up front/centre for them (and 911 conspiracy skeptics, we should be past doubting ct's and use 911 to smash bush and co. no matter how fair it is- they are killers of 1st magnitude, and no one on earth has the right to leave them with the powers they stole, or waste time promoting that what helps them)
if it's good versus evil, why argue? Why waste time arguing?
snip>
...The Skull & Bones members believe in the idea of "constructive chaos". By keeping their true policy intentions secret, by constantly sending out mixed signals on all critical policy issues, they consciously seek to sow confusion among both their nominal "friends" and "enemies" alike. The fulcrum for the policy of constructive chaos is, at present, the Middle East situation. Although U.S. military action in the region has for the time being subsided, America's military power will remain a critical determinant in the future of that vital zone of conflict....
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/parapolitics/sandb.html

From: the canada's | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 22 April 2007 09:01 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay Stockholm. Let's try approaching this from a different angle and seeing if it jogs something for you.

Let's go to the fictional land of Flimflammia, where the Duke Doohickey resides as a powerful landowner. The Duke has been hoping to instigate a war with the neighbouring land of Geewhizia for years and years, but all the other powers of the land (quite rightly) refuse to cooperate, saying the war would be stupid and destructive. He can't raise the money for his invasion and neither the crown nor the church will give their blessing. In a meeting of like-minded individuals, he writes a document saying that despite the urgent need for an invasion of Geewhizia, it will require some catalyst, a disaster of grand proportions, to spur people into supporting it.

A few years later, the king dies. The Duke and his hawkish peers manage to maneuver their preferred candidate onto the throne. Although he advocates for war, the merchants and church are still not convinced. Then, soon after, a fire starts in the Great Cathedral of Flimflammia. As the flames consume their cherished holy center, the onlookers wait for the fire brigade, which had always been so prompt in the past, to show up and save the day, but they never arrive. The Cathedral burns to the ground, and the commoners are horrified.

It turns out that running the fire brigade was one of the Duke's new responsibilities, bestowed upon him by the new king, but questions into why the brigade did not appear for something so crucial when they've always been there for far less serious fires are cut short, as the Duke takes center stage and proclaims that this could have been the work of none other than the heathens of Geewhizia. With the crowd's anger and hatred thus fired up, the church and merchants have no choice but to give in to the Duke and support the war.

What a happy coincidence for Duke Doohickey, don't you think? Now Stockholm, the million dollar question: Should we consider the possibility that the Duke might have started that fire himself? Given that he wrote that document longing for just such a calamity, given that he was in charge of the fire brigade which failed in its duty, and given that he showed exactly zero interest into the question of why the brigade failed. I don't mean we should draw and quarter him without any evidence, but does it bear investigating, or should we give him a free pass? You tell me. What is the course of action here for a responsible person?


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 11:35 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All those people who bother to participate in this ongoing 9-11 soap opera are apologist recruits for American imperialism. Don't waste your time people. Because if 9-11 was the sum total of their wrong doing, it would be a vast improvement to the paleoconservative record. If Clinton's people glossed over Iraqgate the way they did, what makes anyone think 9-11 could be any different ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
bohajal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11492

posted 22 April 2007 05:02 PM      Profile for bohajal   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't mean we should draw and quarter him without any evidence, but does it bear investigating, or should we give him a free pass? You tell me. What is the course of action here for a responsible person? J T T

There is an element that is missing here and that element, methinks, is crucial for Stockholm to make a determination: Is the Duke Doohickey an unconditional supporter of Israel ?

If yes, then the Duke should be given a free pass.


From: planet earth, I believe | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 05:16 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bohajal:
Where the provincial NDP is bigoted

I find your location to be a really offensive and ignorant comment on your part. If you can't point to a news story or verifiable source for your idiotic claim, then shit or get off the pot!.

Canadian Apartheid

Genocide in Progress at Buffalo Lake, AB

A History of Racism in Canada

Dudley George and Ontario's Racist Conservative Government:first native to be executed by the state in over a hundred years

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
bohajal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11492

posted 22 April 2007 05:33 PM      Profile for bohajal   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
"Vive l'Orange Révolution" ?

Here is my constructive advice, Fidel: In French we say "Vive la Révolution Orange".

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: bohajal ]


From: planet earth, I believe | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Abdul_Maria
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11105

posted 22 April 2007 05:35 PM      Profile for Abdul_Maria     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gram swaraj:
[QB]This is a follow up to the thread:Green candidate believes 9/11 conspiracy theories

it's a compliment & a sign of intelligence.

the American media uses the term "conspiracy theory" when they are unable to argue an issue on the facts, and want to discredit someone (like Georgia Representative Cynthia McKinney).

the American media did the same thing with the term "liberal" - turned it into an epithet of sorts.

from living in America where the term is widely used, i find that people who use the term conspiracy theory fall in either or both of 2 categories -
* it's part of their job, for example a television journalist
* republicans who are afraid of books, information, and reality.

did you know there are creationists who believe that Tyrannosaurus Rex co-existed with humans - and was a vegetarian ? just as there are people who subscribe to the official government explanation for the events of 9-11.


From: San Fran | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 05:35 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well where's your news source, someone other than your stupid self, Mr Smear Jobber ?
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 22 April 2007 05:40 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gram swaraj:

Galileo, he was persecuted for being incompetent.


Actually no. He was prosecuted for agreeing with Giordano Bruno. Bruno was a nutcase thorn in the side of the Catholic church who used the solar centred sytem of Copernicus as a metaphor for attacking the church. When Galileo said the same thing the Church attacked him.

I'm in a related position in this thread, being even somewhat in agreement with Stockholm is not exactly a comfortable position.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
kylebailey260
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11330

posted 22 April 2007 05:50 PM      Profile for kylebailey260     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
'shakes his head slightly'

Stockhom, I completely agree with your reasoning.

Strange that criticism of the fringe Green candidate united our viewpoints on something completely different.


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 05:55 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bohajal:
Where the provincial NDP is bigoted

ETA: I'm sorry, but I can't backup my libellous claim. So take it from where it's coming from, a drone for the bigoted Conservative Party. So I'll just keep on broadcasting my libellous claim here on a left wing forum like the turd that I am.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: bohajal ]

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
FraserValleyMan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13970

posted 22 April 2007 10:04 PM      Profile for FraserValleyMan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
What about them knowing an attack would take place and purposefully not defending against it? Does that fall under your category of "things to be dismissed and ridiculed"?

Tell me this. Did FDR know the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour?


From: Port Coquitlam, BC | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 11:19 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by FraserValleyMan:

Tell me this. Did FDR know the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour?


According to
this new site, the U.S. military had broken the Japanese code and were monitoring Japanese communications for months before Pearl Harbor was bombed.

[ 23 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 22 April 2007 11:30 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Stockhom, I completely agree with your reasoning.

That's funny, because I've been looking for some reasoning and I can't find any. Since you agree, I assume you can. Would you like to outline it for me?


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 22 April 2007 11:36 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Tell me this. Did FDR know the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour?

How would I know the answer to that?

If I had been alive at the time, however, I would definitely have supported an investigation into the question. And there is far less reason for suspicion in that case than there is in the case of the WTC attacks.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 22 April 2007 11:56 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
being even somewhat in agreement with Stockholm is not exactly a comfortable position.

Yeah, I can see that.

At least you can take comfort by telling yourself all those who make you feel uncomfortable are incompetent.

I stand accused.


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 23 April 2007 12:01 AM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey jrootham, you want to see incompetence? Look at the official investigation into the events of 9/11/01, and examine all the things that they missed.

ETA: And look at the time it took them to get the investigation off the ground.

[ 23 April 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 23 April 2007 12:10 AM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey jrootham, you want to see competence?

Just look at the terrorist pilot who flew the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. At least one of them dirty terrorists must have had training on how to land a passenger airliner. He got it right into the side of the building!!! Wow, how tall is the Pentagon? And he did it without air traffic control, radio beacons, and other guiding markers. He must have had great eyes. What was the weather like that day? He must have lucked out a little bit too. But it must have taken skill to keep it on target after hitting the light poles. Anyways, damn good he was. It should make you respect your enemies.

[ 23 April 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 23 April 2007 04:29 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
According to
this, the U.S. military had broken the Japanese code and were monitoring Japanese communications for months before Pearl Harbor was bombed.

Fidel, did you look at that site?

Any organization that refers to Ernst Zundel as a prisoner of conscience is a bit lacking in the credibility department. I would suggest you repudiate it before it gets reflected back at you.

Yes, the US cracked Purple, but the attack on Pearl Harbour was made under radio silence.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bobby Peru
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14043

posted 23 April 2007 04:59 AM      Profile for Bobby Peru     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...which is why they called it a 'surprise attack'. Who would have thought a group of rag tag terrorists would have thought of such a perfect idea to attack the US. Why, with an expense layout of about USD500,000 they overcame a trillion dollar defence system that was looking outwards for incoming ballistic missles. But then history is full of these surprises because all bureaucracies are blunt instruments that are inherently slow and cumbersome and inward looking.

But, then it's another thing to say 911 was a conspiracy- just imagine all the people that have to be in on it. It's simply inconceivable that the secret could be kept for any length of time.


From: vancouver | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 April 2007 09:36 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:

Fidel, did you look at that site?

Any organization that refers to Ernst Zundel as a prisoner of conscience is a bit lacking in the credibility department. I would suggest you repudiate it before it gets reflected back at you.


Yes, didn't see that. And they have a piece by Eric Margolis and all.(shudder)

quote:
Yes, the US cracked Purple, but the attack on Pearl Harbour was made under radio silence

But the article claims that Japanese attack was in the skunkworks. He's claiming it wasn't a surprise attack and that it was anticipated.

jrootham, here is another source mentioning Toland. I don't believe this one is a racist site.
Independent.org

quote:
Apparently, the pre-Pearl Harbor records had not been seen or reviewed since 1941. Though refiled in pH-safe archival boxes by Lyons’ staff, some of the Crane documents were covered with dust, tightly bunched together in the boxes and tied with unusual waxed twine. Lyons confirmed the records were received from the U.S. Navy in that condition.

It took me a year to evaluate the records. The information revealed in the files was astonishing. It disclosed a Pearl Harbor story hidden from the public. I believed the story should be told to the American people.


[ 23 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 23 April 2007 10:02 AM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While we're on the subject, I've always found it interesting, the timing of the intended blockbuster 'Pearl Harbour' (Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler) in the summer of 2001.
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 23 April 2007 01:36 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, 2001 only happens to be the 50th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack. It was still a pretty bad movie.
From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 23 April 2007 01:42 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:

Fidel, did you look at that site?

Any organization that refers to Ernst Zundel as a prisoner of conscience is a bit lacking in the credibility department. I would suggest you repudiate it before it gets reflected back at you.

Yes, the US cracked Purple, but the attack on Pearl Harbour was made under radio silence.


In addition, "Purple" was the Japanese diplomatic code. The navel code wasn't cracked until 1942 which enabled the United States to prepare for the attack on the Midway Islands. Incidentaly, "cracking" a code does not mean reading it verbatim. U.S. naval intelligence was able to read about 1 word in 10 and used extrapolation and radio traffic analysis to figure out that the target was Midway.


From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 23 April 2007 02:32 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is always easier to impute knowledge backwards, to move from "they should have known an attack was coming" to "they knew an attack was coming".

So, for example, we can now look at the activities of the Virginia Tech murderer in the weeks prior to the shootings, and wonder why someone didn't put two and two together. But the fact is, they didn't. Humans are like that; quite flawed beings overall.

Similarly with Pearl Harbour and 9-11, there was evidence which, if properly interpreted, should have raised all sorts of warnings. But it is still a great leap from "The Japanese are entirely hostile to the United States and its forces in the Far East" to "The Japanese will be attacking Pearl Harbour on December 7th."


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 April 2007 03:07 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apparently there were CIA warnings about a possibility for "passenger planes being used as missiles" or some such, and that the terrorist threat should have been considered like Reichstaggeringly high. The chickenhawks weren't interested in that. They wanted a "pretext", an excuse to murder poor people for their oil in Iraq.

It's a good thing Canadians were liberated from our oil long ago by CD Howe and the weaklings in Ottawa and Calgary, or Canadians, too, could have been victims of a shadow guvmint-orchestrated pretext years ago.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 23 April 2007 07:28 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bobby Peru:
... it's another thing to say 911 was a conspiracy- just imagine all the people that have to be in on it. It's simply inconceivable that the secret could be kept for any length of time.

This argument is made again and again. But it fails to deal with loads of physical and circumstantial evidence.

People who make this argument also overestimate the number of people required to pull this thing off. For starters, if you had watched the documentary Loose Change (available on internet video), a credible case can be made that there were NO members of the public on any of the 4 allegedly hijacked planes.

Drone technology can be used to fly Boeing 757s.

[ 23 April 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 23 April 2007 07:44 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no credible physical evidence for anything other than the planes hitting the towers ultimately causing them to fall.

If you think there is a problem with the NIST report, could you specify the error that you think they made which invalidates it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 23 April 2007 08:09 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
There is no credible physical evidence for anything other than the planes hitting the towers ultimately causing them to fall.

Quite wrong. First of all, there is physics itself. Galileo, you know. Then there are plenty of photos of the steel beams, points of fracture exposed (I won't get into detail just now). And then you must consider who had access to the physical evidence before it was carted off to be "recycled."

Your not wanting to believe there is no credible physical evidence, does not mean there is no credible physical evidence.

re: Your request about the NIST report, that will take some more reading/searching. Patience on that one, SVP, I do have other things to do.

BTW: I also found this site Sifting Through Loose Change: A detailed point-by-point critique of the film


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 23 April 2007 08:25 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The 9/11 nuttery is as bad as climate-change deniers. Get it straight, people: you can advocate for whatever ridiculous theory you want, but you can't coopt the scientific community to your side.

I don't claim scientific expertise, or really even competence. But I can read, and I do know an elision of truth when I see it. Loose Change and the nonsense like it are just painfully bad.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bobby Peru
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14043

posted 23 April 2007 08:30 PM      Profile for Bobby Peru     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Have you seen the rebuttals to all the conspiracy theories by magazines like Popular Mechanics? You can't look at the conspiracy documentaries without giving time to the anti-conspiracy documentaries, too. It's like Fahrenheit 911; you have to see it's anti-thesis Fahrenhype 911 in order to understand both sides.

You speak of Boeing jets flown by remote control, but not about the logistics, planning and number of people needed to make all that happen. Anything is possible, but is this probable? Common senese weighs heavily against a 911 conspiracy given the number of eyes on this event and the sheer complexit of the conspiracy theory itself.

Now Pearl Harbour is another story in another time.


From: vancouver | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 April 2007 09:07 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
The 9/11 nuttery is as bad as climate-change deniers. Get it straight, people: you can advocate for whatever ridiculous theory you want, but you can't coopt the scientific community to your side.

And these kinds of hysterical rebuttals aren't helping matters. Not all conspiracy theories for 9-11 focus on the scientific explanation so much as the political one. There is evidence that the Bush regime are some of the biggest crooks and pathological liars for the most powerful cosmetic government in the free world ever to lose an election by popular vote.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 23 April 2007 09:17 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel, I'm pretty sure I get that Bush is a jerk.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 April 2007 11:04 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just sayin'. They had the best funded intel agency plopping reports on people's desks warning of terror attacks in pretty much the same manner as it happened. What do they say about the law, that ignorance is not a defence ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401

posted 24 April 2007 04:55 AM      Profile for jrose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too long, I'm going to have to close this one.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca