Terrorists alert

[segnosaur]

By now, we've all heard about the terrorist alerts but one article I read said they are all FAKE. It state that the US government uses them for this own reasons at the time and has lied to it people and the world about BinLaden, who died way before the US says he did and this said by a former US intelligent agent. Thoughts? http://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-washington-terror-threat/5344984

My thoughts... never waste time reading any article appearing on idiotic web sites like 'global research', 'prison planet', or any site posting such conspiracy nonsense such as claims that "bin Laden died of kidney disease''.

Even if there is some validity in arguments that the U.S. is over reacting, you basically taint your entire argument by referring to such claptrap.

[GostHacked]

My thoughts... never waste time reading any article appearing on idiotic web sites like 'global research', 'prison planet', or any site posting such conspiracy nonsense such as claims that "bin Laden died of kidney disease''.

Even if there is some validity in arguments that the U.S. is over reacting, you basically taint your entire argument by referring to such claptrap.

It's about as good as quoting CNN or Foxnews ...

[Shady]

So the Wall Street and corporate bailouts did not happen?

What does that have to do with the terrorism alerts?

[GostHacked]

What does that have to do with the terrorism alerts?

Probably nothing, but it was an answer to a statement in which you made a false claim.

[segnosaur]

My thoughts... never waste time reading any article appearing on idiotic web sites like 'global research', 'prison planet', or any site posting such conspiracy nonsense such as claims that "bin Laden died of kidney disease''.

It's about as good as quoting CNN or Foxnews ...

Errr... not really.

While I certainly wouldn't bother listening to any Foxnews political commentators, CNN does hold a much better reputation. And while it could be argued that all news sources have some sort of bias (and that mistakes do happen), there is a world of difference between a source like CNN (which may contain errors) and ones like Global Research or Prison Planet (which tend to make up stories).

Mainstream media sources tend to put at least some value in accuracy. Make too many mistakes and you loose credibility (and viewers/readers). Sites like Global Research can continue putting out any sort of nonsense they want because they cater to a niche market that is much more forgiving of errors.

[Shady]

Probably nothing, but it was an answer to a statement in which you made a false claim.

My statement was completely accurate. Trillions was not "taken" and "given" to corporations out of terrorism fright.

[GostHacked]

My statement was completely accurate. Trillions was not "taken" and "given" to corporations out of terrorism fright.

Your statement was nothing of the sort.

The public isn't frightened. And a terror alert for places thousands of miles away isn't going to get them frightened. Also, and I've noticed this from a lot of posters with a similar point of view. You like to keep inflating numbers. No, trillions of dollars isn't being "taken" from Americans and "given" to large corporations. That's pure hyperbole. Watch the Simpsons video I guess.

Care to clarify?

Edited August 6, 2013 by GostHacked

[segnosaur]

My statement was completely accurate. Trillions was not "taken" and "given" to corporations out of terrorism fright.

Your statement was nothing of the sort.

Actually, yes it was.

Lets run down the conversation, shall we?

The post that started this all was by dre:

dre: Scared people are really really stupid, and terrorism has been an opportunity to take trillions of dollars from Americans, and turn it over to large corporations.

Shady: No, trillions of dollars isn't being "taken" from Americans and "given" to large corporations.

Now, Shady didn't outright state that trillions wasn't taken for terrorism, but the context of his post (he was doing a direct response to dre) certainly implied that that he was talking about money spent to combat terrorism.

Bringing up things like the wall street bailouts are irrelevant because such spending was not done due to terrorism.

[dre]

My statement was completely accurate. Trillions was not "taken" and "given" to corporations out of terrorism fright.

No your statement is wrong. Cost estimates for the GWOT including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan range from 3 to 5 trillion dollars. And if had GPS locators on all of those dollars you would see that most of that money ended up in the pockets of US companies (defense contractors, oil services companies,etc).

http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts

The cost of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan are estimated at 225,000 lives and up to $4 trillion in U.S. spending, in a new report by scholars with the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. The group’s “Costs of War” project has released new figures for a range of human and economic costs associated with the U.S. military response to the 9/11 attacks.

It was used to buy bombs, bullets, equipment, security contractor services, services from oil contractors. Literally thousands of companies stepped up to profit.

Heres a few of the major ones, just in the Iraq war alone...

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

The reality is the GWOT is the gift that just keeps on giving.. to war profiteers, and taking... from tax payers.

http://www.examiner.com/article/war-profiteering-and-campaigns-perpetuate-war-on-terror

Since 1999 the defense industry has more than doubled its niche in the American manufacturing sector. The industry guru’s have deduced that campaign donations of $200 million can produce a return on investment of billions in lucrative Pentagon contracts. The defense lobbying effort certainly pays out high returns and the forecast confirms smooth sailing.

So why would President Obama risk his “Nobel Peace” prize and commit more resources to the Middle East? The answer lies with big campaign donors. Obama’s new Afghan War 10-year commitment makes a lot more sense after examining his major donors. It turns out that defense contractors are among the President’s largest supporters. To be fair, the money usually follows the party in power, but it appears defense contractors are hedging their bets and donating huge sums of money to President Obama’s reelection coffers

And as long as they can keep terrorism front and center in the minds of Americans the cash will keep flowing. Between the government and private sector profiteers, there is a huge institutional push to keep the party going.

Edited August 6, 2013 by dre

[GostHacked]

Actually, yes it was.

.....

Bringing up things like the wall street bailouts are irrelevant because such spending was not done due to terrorism.

Fair enough.

[Topaz]

I'm not sure on these latest alerts, confused as the rest of you but the doubt probably comes from the fall out of 9/11 and all the doubts of what really happen and who really is responsible for. Of course, any government has the power on their side and who knows what the agenda is or isn't. OR maybe the US is helping out the Harper government get the Canadian dipolmats back to work! (lol)

[Shady]

No your statement is wrong. Cost estimates for the GWOT including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan range from 3 to 5 trillion dollars. And if had GPS locators on all of those dollars you would see that most of that money ended up in the pockets of US companies (defense contractors, oil services companies,etc).

http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts

It was used to buy bombs, bullets, equipment, security contractor services, services from oil contractors. Literally thousands of companies stepped up to profit.

Heres a few of the major ones, just in the Iraq war alone...

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

The reality is the GWOT is the gift that just keeps on giving.. to war profiteers, and taking... from tax payers.

http://www.examiner.com/article/war-profiteering-and-campaigns-perpetuate-war-on-terror

And as long as they can keep terrorism front and center in the minds of Americans the cash will keep flowing. Between the government and private sector profiteers, there is a huge institutional push to keep the party going.

Your premise makes no sense. One would have to assume that almost every cent of the costs of the wars went to corporations, which isn't the case at all. Also, the corporations you speak of, employ tens of thousands of tax payers, who's salaries and benefits are paid for by the products and services they provide the pentagon and defense department. It's much more complex than your bumper sticker hyperbole of "taking" money from tax payers and "giving" to corporations.

[dre]

Your premise makes no sense. One would have to assume that almost every cent of the costs of the wars went to corporations, which isn't the case at all. Also, the corporations you speak of, employ tens of thousands of tax payers, who's salaries and benefits are paid for by the products and services they provide the pentagon and defense department. It's much more complex than your bumper sticker hyperbole of "taking" money from tax payers and "giving" to corporations.

My premise makes perfect sense, and even if only less than half of the 4-6 trillion ended up going to profiteers the "trillions" comment is still true. But regardless of that number the thrust of my argument stands, and that is there is a gigantic ammount of capital aligned towards keeping all this going.

As for your comment about jobs... its true war creates short term jobs in the same way that the government borrowing money and hiring a million people to dig a huge hole and fill it back in would create jobs. But it actually hurts the overall economy because if that money had been spent on things like education and infrastructure and r&d way more jobs would have been created. It also hurts the economy because it adds to the deficit which means eventually the government will have to raise taxes in order to pay all that interest.

A billion dollars in defense spending will create a 8555 jobs with an average wage of 70k

But a billion dollars in education spending will create 17687 jobs with an average wage of 74k

A billion dollar investment in mass transit will create 19795 jobs with an average wage of 44k