9/11

[Guest American Woman]

Then why wasn't it necessary the first time ?

As bush_cheney said, the first time Iraq had invaded Kuwait.

But, you're talking about planned mass slaughter of your own people, not neglect.

If I felt that my government truly murdered its own citizens in that way, I think I would have to leave my country.

Keeping a war going to save face politically isn't "neglect." It's a conscious, very deliberate decision.

But if I felt that my government truly murdered its own citizens in that way, I know I would have to stick around and try to get that government out of power. I wouldn't run away from it. Technically, though, it isn't "our government" that we're talking about, but the Bush administration. So it would be 'the present government,' and I would stick around to do all that I could to counteract it and replace it. What good would be accomplished by running away from it-- especially if one truly loves their nation and believes in the good aspects?

As a side note, other countries aren't just waiting with open arms to accept these Americans if they did want to leave. Canada won't even accept those seeking to escape fighting in the resulting war even though the war is killing thousands of innocent civilians.

[Riverwind]

As for how difficult it would have been to generate support for starting war in Iraq without 9-11, it would have been impossible.

If 9/11 was a hoax intended to provide the pretext for invading Iraq then why weren't any of the alleged suicide pilots Iraqis? In fact there is zero evidence of any sort linking Iraq to 9/11. Seems to me that if the powers that be were staging a hoax to justify the invasion of Iraq then they would have done a better job implicating Saddam and Iraq. Edited December 3, 2007 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

My point being that a 9/11 type disaster isn't the only motivation required to generate support for military initiatives.

[GostHacked]

My point being that a 9/11 type disaster isn't the only motivation required to generate support for military initiatives.

With people being so complacent in their daily lives, and with all the modern distractions we have, it would have been impossible to 'wake up' the people to a threat they know has no substanc. We all know that Iraq did not possess any chem/bio/nuclear weapons after the first gulf war. Saddam tried like hell to get the programme working again, but the infrastructure to continue was devestated in the first gulf war.

Riverwind

If 9/11 was a hoax intended to provide the pretext for invading Iraq then why weren't any of the alleged suicide pilots Iraqis? In fact there is zero evidence of any sort linking Iraq to 9/11. Seems to me that if the powers that be were staging a hoax to justify the invasion of Iraq then they would have done a better job implicating Saddam and Iraq.

Iraq was never officially connected to 9/11. But in one of Georges speaches, Iraq was in a sentence right before the stated war on terror. Not one hijacker was from Iraq, but many of them were Saudis (US close ally).

Since Iraq could not be connected to a war on terror, there would have been little support for the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq (until the so called Iraqi government gets on it's feet, I will consider it still run by the coalition of the 'willing'.) The American population would not stand for this at all. But with 9/11, rallying of the 'troops' was alot easier. THEY ATTACKED US, WE MUST PAY THEM BACK... ect ect.

Even a PNAC document (which has been thrown around her some) tends to have more meaning and weight behind it.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Jeb Bush <- Former givenor of Florida (I think he is no longer there)

Dick Cheney <-- your current VP.

Steve Forbes <----rich man

I. Lewis Libby <----- SCOOTER !!!!

Donald Rumsfeld <--- Former Secretary of Defence.

Paul Wolfowitz <---- World Bank

All card carrying members of the PNAC.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf.

Page 63.

Further, the process of transformation even if it brings revoilutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent of some catastrophic and catalyzing event -like a new Pearl Harbour

Micheal Hardner

My point being that a 9/11 type disaster isn't the only motivation required to generate support for military initiatives.

But it is a huge public display that the whole population can see,hear experience, and make it personal to the American population. it makes things much easier. If Iraq was invaded with the same information they presented before the war and without 9/11, do you really think the US would have gone into Iraq in 2001? There was much propaganda talk about war on terror and SADDAM, BAD SADDAM (who was once a close ally of the US) right after 9/11. It was a convienient way to blow some smoke up all our asses to get this next stage started.

Well, ok. But how hard would it have been otherwise to generate support for it, in the way that was used in those other examples ? Surely, it wouldn't be necessary to kill 3000 of one's own citizens to make it happen.

Ask yourself this. How does invading Iraq change the course of extremeism among the Islamic fundamentalists? There are many countries that need to be 'freed' a alot more than Iraq.

And why is it that all the horrors stories about Islam are not comming out of the Axis of Evil? OK, maybe some is comming out of the Axis (well maybe not North Korea, I doubt they are Muslims)

Iraq was a soft target compared to the other countries. Iraq has been under a no fly zone for a decade previous to the 2003 invasion.

Ask yourself this. Why does a broke man burn down his house to get an insurance claim. Why would someone hurt themselves in that fashion. Down on their luck? In many cases yes. IN many cases, people just want to collect the insurance so they can build a better house.

More to come..

[Wilber]

What more? You ask a bunch of questions but provide no answers, just speculation.

You are doing the same thing you are attributing to Bush. Playing the opportunist. Taking an event and manipulating it to serve your own prejudices and purposes.

[GostHacked]

What more? You ask a bunch of questions but provide no answers, just speculation.

You are doing the same thing you are attributing to Bush. Playing the opportunist. Taking an event and manipulating it to serve your own prejudices and purposes.

I have yet to find the answers I am looking for. I did not find those answeres in a few of the 9/11 books I have read, including the official 9/11 report along with several other books. Some of it is speculation (like those pesky ever elusive WMDs Bush said Saddam had) and I admit that. Much of the 9/11 report has speculations.

The oppourtunity here is for me to learn something. That is my goal. And if you agree that Bush played the opportunist to serve his own prejudices and purposes, don't you think that is more of a concern than one tin foil hat wearer?? Bush is the President of the US and the Commander in Cheif of the US Military. Tell me who has more to gain by it, me or him? A man that should be responsible in that position. Then by your statement, it is an abuse of power.

But that is what much of this thread is, speculation on how and why 9/11 happened, once you manage to outright prove something, speculation goes away and the truth is revieled to us. To this day there is more speculation around 9/11 than there was at the start. Why? People started asking questions. Why do they ask questions? They want answeres. Why do people ask more questions? Is because the answers before were not adequate enough to prove something outright. Or lies covering lies. Most of us can smell the bulls!t, but our domestic complacency lets us be manipulated by the powers that be. So we go against our instincts and believe something we know could be wrong.

Again, when in many of the official 9/11 reports there is no official explanation about the cause of Building 7 (Soloman Brothers Building) fell down. You can point to the Popular Mechanics article about how it fell, but that is not in the official reports, so the P.S. report to me is considered junk.

Another one of my selfish purposes is to present a few items to see what questions get generated. I am not the smartest man on the planet, so asking questions is vital to getting information. Asking the right questions can get you much more.

Play the Devil's Advocate for a change. See what kind of questions you come up with. I can still not prove that it was an inside job. I will speculate (see!?) that it was an inside job based on the events of that day and in doing some research that goes back to the 70's.

If you think Afghanistan was planned right after 9/11, I will say you are wrong. How does one move all the troops and equipment needed to theater without months of planning? Afghanistan was invaded on October 7th. Not even a full month after the terror attack on the US. Do you think this was 100% reactionary to the event? How much planning is needed to begin the operation? If you say it was franticly put together after 9/11, then I would suggest looking into how long it takes to prepare that many troops/equipment for war.

Iraq could have been planned after 9/11, but the notion to go into Iraq has been around since the first Gulf War.

I really think that a good place to start is corporate capitolism and the break up of monopolistic companies in the 80s. Why it was done. Compare that now with how many of those small companies don't exist anymore. Money has power and influence. With enough of it, you can call the shots, no matter what position you are in.

[Michael Hardner]

Ask yourself this. Why does a broke man burn down his house to get an insurance claim. Why would someone hurt themselves in that fashion. Down on their luck? In many cases yes. IN many cases, people just want to collect the insurance so they can build a better house.

If you insist on using that analogy...

The man in this case is significantly wealthy, and will collect only part of the value of the house. Moreover, there's a chance he won't collect at all. Moreover, he derives significant income from his record of being 'fireproof', so he damages his reputation for security by burning down his own house.

The reward doesn't warrant the risk.

[Wilber]

I have yet to find the answers I am looking for.

It would be more accurate to say you have yet to get the answers you want. The answers are there, they just don't suit your purposes. That is why I say that you are the same as Bush. He used 9/11 as a pretense to attack Iraq in spite of the evidence and you are using it to attack him, also in spite of the evidence.

There is a big difference between taking advantage of an event to suit your purposes and staging that event in the first place. What you are saying is that Bush is some sort of Hitler figure staging the Reichstag fire and dressing up convicts in Polish uniforms to attack a German radio station as a pretense to start WWII. I'm not fond of Bush but I don't buy it.

Lets turn the argument around. Perhaps 9/11 was staged by Bush's domestic detractors in order to embarrass him. I don't buy that one either.

As Freud said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" or something like that.

[GostHacked]

It would be more accurate to say you have yet to get the answers you want. The answers are there, they just don't suit your purposes. That is why I say that you are the same as Bush. He used 9/11 as a pretense to attack Iraq in spite of the evidence and you are using it to attack him, also in spite of the evidence.

No it would not be accurate to say I have not gotten the answeres I 'want'. Again, when many of the official 9/11 reports have much speculation in them, and theorize but cannot give us any real substantial evidence, then I should accept the cigar as what it is? What kind of Cigar was the war on terror? Even 9/11 Commision Report indicates that more investigation needs to be done in order to know for sure.

There is a big difference between taking advantage of an event to suit your purposes and staging that event in the first place. What you are saying is that Bush is some sort of Hitler figure staging the Reichstag fire and dressing up convicts in Polish uniforms to attack a German radio station as a pretense to start WWII. I'm not fond of Bush but I don't buy it.

Yeah the German people did not think that it was in Hitler's capacity to do that either. He was a powerful speaker and was able to manipulate the population after the Reichstag fire. Pretext for what happened next. Hitler was charismatic and passionate in his role. He talked the talk, and people stepped in his line and suported him.

Hitler's Enabling act would alter Germany's constitution. Same way the Patriot Act in the US encroaches on people's rights defined by the US Consitution. The FISA bill, wiretapping ect. All this done under the guise of security and the betterment of the people. To protect us from the enemy.

Now that a few years has passed and the Patriot Act is still in place. One might be able to make some shocking discovery about the similarities between these two acts.

It is never the enemy who will curb your freedoms or rights. It is your own government that will do this.

[Guest American Woman]

If 9/11 was a hoax intended to provide the pretext for invading Iraq then why weren't any of the alleged suicide pilots Iraqis? In fact there is zero evidence of any sort linking Iraq to 9/11. Seems to me that if the powers that be were staging a hoax to justify the invasion of Iraq then they would have done a better job implicating Saddam and Iraq.

At the time we went to war, the majority of the American public believed there was evidence linking Iraq to 9-11. The pilots weren't Afghanis either, but we still attacked Afghanistan.

I'm not saying I believe it was an inside job, I don't. But I do believe that the response was either deliberately poor or gross incompetence. I also believe if anyone in power were in danger, we would have seen a much different/better response. Last but not least, I believe 9-11 was immediately seen as an 'excuse' ('justification' to the public) to attack Iraq. I also believe that the Vietnam war shows just how little value the powers that be can place on ordinary American citizens' lives. Therefore I can understand why some would believe the conspiracy theories out there, even though I don't.

Edited December 3, 2007 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Yeah the German people did not think that it was in Hitler's capacity to do that either. He was a powerful speaker and was able to manipulate the population after the Reichstag fire. Pretext for what happened next. Hitler was charismatic and passionate in his role. He talked the talk, and people stepped in his line and suported him.

He also controlled all the media and anyone who spoke up against him disappeared. I notice that plenty of Bush's detractors are still around.

Hitler's Enabling act would alter Germany's constitution. Same way the Patriot Act in the US encroaches on people's rights defined by the US Constitution. The FISA bill, wiretapping ect. All this done under the guise of security and the betterment of the people. To protect us from the enemy.

No President can alter the Constitution. Presidents have fixed terms, can be booted at the next election and can't be re elected more than once.

Now that a few years has passed and the Patriot Act is still in place. One might be able to make some shocking discovery about the similarities between these two acts.

The Patriot Act will stay until there is enough pressure to remove it. When it is removed, it won't take bloodshed to do it.

It is never the enemy who will curb your freedoms or rights.

That's just dumb. I agree that one should be critical of any attempts by government to restrict personal freedoms but that doesn't mean that national security might not require it in certain circumstances.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Wilber

[aras]

Israel was behind 9/11. Israel has always felt uncomfortable about Iraq, but it could not find a way to destroy Saddam and not start WWIII. There was a lot of tension between Arab states and Israel, you know with the illegal occupation and everything.

"Information" about WMD came from Israel as well. It was a smart decision. Kill a few thousand Americans so Americans will killed a million Iraqis. And Israeli government sitting back, eating popcorn (kosher), and watch them on TV.

Israel's plan for complete control of Middle East by its zionist government is slowly becoming successful. Occupy Palestine and kill Palestinian Muslims. Have US kill Muslims in Iraq and Muslims in Afghanistan. Next is Iran. With its extreme influence in US media, make it all look like it was Muslim's fault so American people are on board.

US sanctions have cost the lives of half a million Iraqi kids. Yet you can not justify a "terror" attack on US because of that or any other US crimes. Yet US justified its illegal invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan because of 9/11.

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

[Wilber]

Yes the Jews are behind everything and you call others Nazis and facists.

[aras]

Yes the Jews are behind everything and you call others Nazis and facists.

What?!

[Guest American Woman]

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

According to Wkipedia, that's a false quote:

^ Other false quotes include:

Don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it, falsely claimed to have been stated by Sharon before Israeli parliament in October 2001 and reported on Kol Yisrael radio

[Sulaco]

At the time we went to war, the majority of the American public believed there was evidence linking Iraq to 9-11. The pilots weren't Afghanis either, but we still attacked Afghanistan.

I'm not saying I believe it was an inside job, I don't. But I do believe that the response was either deliberately poor or gross incompetence. I also believe if anyone in power were in danger, we would have seen a much different/better response. Last but not least, I believe 9-11 was immediately seen as an 'excuse' ('justification' to the public) to attack Iraq. I also believe that the Vietnam war shows just how little value the powers that be can place on ordinary American citizens' lives. Therefore I can understand why some would believe the conspiracy theories out there, even though I don't.

Bleach - that's saying pretty much the same thing.

I notice how important you find it to differentiate this war from all the other wars the US was involved in. I guess acknowledging that the US constantly starts wars would amke BUsh's "crimes" seem far less unsual. Given that you, on the one hand, insist on renouncing any responsivility for the war in Iraq in regard to yourself - you must try to divorce Bush from the People who supported hium when he went to war. That way you can continue to eblieve he has hijacked the nation - or something. it's absolution for you. That is not the case. The US continually intervens militarly abroad. Has done so for more than a century, always for its own benefit. That's the country you and I live in. It's just generally ahs been far more virtous, far less tyrannical, as it goes through the standard motions of any powerful state.

Thus,tTry as you might to escape this conclusion,. it has, in fact, been the norm for the US to carry out military interventions and invasions. Usually the American people accepted far less as reason for intervention. I like to think that's because we generally understand that the US needs to be involved in world affairs and that some things must be dealt with with force. Ot that our natioal interest is to see conflict.

Iraq could have been justified to the people without a 9-11. It is a ridiculous proposition that 9-11 was carried out, or permitted to take place, for the purposes of starting a war with Iraq. It's a mad scientist scenarion you present.

One would ahve to be mad to go to such lengths to get the war justified - because the risks of discovery are so great. If one is so mad than it is leven mor elikely the plot would be discovered. In otherwords - the mad professor carries out mad plans and his madness results in discovery.

But - something I always forget - y'all have already discovered the conspiracy.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Sulaco

[ScottSA]

Iraq could have been justified to the people without a 9-11. It is a ridiculous proposition that 9-11 was carried out, or permitted to take place, for the purposes of starting a war with Iraq. It's a mad scientist scenarion you present.

It is indeed ridiculous. Neither 911 nor WMD was ever the legal justification for war; lack of UNSC compliance was. Nor was 911 the 'excuse' used for the invasion; if I'm not mistaken, Bush mentioned Iraq in connection with 911 very late in the day, when he correctly observed that Iraq was used as a haven for terrorists. If he ever made a connection in any other context, it was evoking the general extant danger to the US by mention of 911 in connection with Iraq, and other rogue nations. Those dangers still exist, and i have no doubt that soon enough they will be driven home forcfully to all the self-satisfied lefties smugly scorning the "war on terra."

The left simply makes stuff up in retrospect and presents it as if it is fact. If substantial amounts of WMD had been found, thereby removing the current chosen scoff of the left, we'd be hearing about 5 trillion dead Iraqi babies instead, or oil, or some other useful bumper sticker slogan. Just as we heard about Vietnam, civil war, and a host of other alarmist yowls, until the apparent success of the surge reduced it into a general low grade grumble from freaks and fat old housewives with vericose viens and bad teeth, dressed in pink .

[Peter F]

The left simply makes stuff up in retrospect and presents it as if it is fact. If substantial amounts of WMD had been found, thereby removing the current chosen scoff of the left, we'd be hearing about 5 trillion dead Iraqi babies instead, or oil, or some other useful bumper sticker slogan. Just as we heard about Vietnam, civil war, and a host of other alarmist yowls, until the apparent success of the surge reduced it into a general low grade grumble from freaks and fat old housewives with vericose viens and bad teeth, dressed in pink .

...and if Joe Stalin hadn't have been responsible for the deaths of billions, you'd be moaning and groaning about bread-lines and Lada's...

Pretty feeble argument you're making there.

[ScottSA]

...and if Joe Stalin hadn't have been responsible for the deaths of billions, you'd be moaning and groaning about bread-lines and Lada's...

Pretty feeble argument you're making there.

I take it you'd like to defend Stalin then? Fairly large cow pie you just stepped in there...

Edited December 5, 2007 by ScottSA

[GostHacked]

Wilber

He also controlled all the media and anyone who spoke up against him disappeared. I notice that plenty of Bush's detractors are still around.

http://www.whitehousepresscorps.org/

Dana Perino is just another in a long list of PR faces. That's all it is. The way the current US government treats the press (and it has been on the decline way before that) does not make this government overt enough. No comment on my comment from last year. Asking questions is ridiculed. Don't dis the disinformation.

No President can alter the Constitution. Presidents have fixed terms, can be booted at the next election and can't be re elected more than once.

Through a few Executive Orders invoked at the same time or one by one it can be done. Consider this: How would a wanna be dictator take control of a democratic republic? First you have to create an environment where fear and terror will scare you to give up your rights to the government in turn for protection against the fear and terror.

Also the context of the War on Terror comes to mind. The 9/11 attacks were acts of terrorism. It does not matter if it came from within, or from without. It was designed to bring fear into a media/leisure induced girth growing society. Since you have nothing but a plethora of media to watch/play/listen too. Being too complacent in our lives and eating up pop culture till we bust at the seams, the real news of world and local governments becomes secondary to most of the population. I know most on this board are pretty freakin smart/intelligent. People end up being surprised when this kind of thing happens. It is because people were just not paying attention to any outside terror threat on a large scale like 9/11. Now what kind of fear can you instill on the people on a daily basis by invoking 9/11. WMDs, Smoking Mushroom Cloud Guns, terror, fear and radical religious fervor?

Since 9/11 have you payed MORE attention to Terrorism? Or less.

Scale 1 to 10, how much attention did you give Terrorism before 9/11?

We only hear from Osama now and then. But we listen to our politicians on a daily basis and just by that the government is promoting terrorism by making us more aware of it. Be afraid of everyone and everything. Terrorism is not the act itself, it is simply the threat to cause harm. That is terrorism.

That's just dumb. I agree that one should be critical of any attempts by government to restrict personal freedoms but that doesn't mean that national security might not require it in certain circumstances.

Through those executive orders Martial Law can be established in the United States. Under Martial Law, the constitution can be suspended, elections called off, and boom we reside in a police state.

But to give up more rights. There will be more terror on all of you. So we will need to put in more security (combining levels of law enforcement, more surveillance, more police, more riot gear, more weapons, the ever lingering police presence.

How much terror from within are you willing to put up with? When we know that most of the media we get these days is slanted from one extreme to another, how does one expect to get a good grasp on the whole picture. Each one of us slants it in our own way based on personal experiences and beliefs. This forms an unconscious prejudice.

Combining different levels of law enforcement together is another consolidation of power. Now a few control more of this pie I keep talking about. The few people controlling the most of the pie, the more influence they have. As with corporations, this seems to happen in our governments and respected departments. Corporations have money and influence, and control our media. They can control and shape our ideals wants and needs. They spew out multiple gun blazing people blowing up crash fest, but PLEASE FOR THE CHILDREN put that nipple away. Guns violence good! Sex, nakedness bad.

It is that much of a stretch to make the similarity of the Hollywood Gun, to the governments PR regarding the war on terror? Hollywood sure has stepped up to the complacency table with a plethora of TV shows and movies and video games all with Terrorism on the mind. We get it from all angles.

The amalgamation of power is going on on a large scale as well. A country scale level. Check out that European Union. Now check out the SPP and the proposed SuperNAFTA and the North American Union. Since the US is more or less trying their damnest to secure their borders, why even consider a combined superstate with Mexico and Canada? If the USs sovereignty is so important, why even consider a union of any kind? That would mean this new supergovernment will have to beef up security all over the place to 'Protect and Serve'.

On a final note for this post...

When fewer have more, the rest suffer in poverty pestilence disease and death.

[Wilber]

Through those executive orders Martial Law can be established in the United States. Under Martial Law, the constitution can be suspended, elections called off, and boom we reside in a police state.

Only if he can convince the military to go along with it. The US government has only declared martial law three times and never on a nation wide basis. The same number of times that Canada has invoked the War Measures Act. The president of the US has less power in his own country than a Prime Minister of Canada. Do you look under your bed before you go to sleep at night?

[M.Dancer]

Only Congress can declare Martial Law. The president might try, buit it still needs to be done by Congress. It's a constitutional thing......

Lincoln decared MArtial Law with congressional approval, Jackson declared a limited marial law during the war of 1812 in New Orleans

[runningdog]

Ex Italian PM says 911 was an inside job.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/december2...n_knowledge.htm

[M.Dancer]

Ex Italian PM says 911 was an inside job.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/december2...n_knowledge.htm

Italian PM has a history of being a loon......

http://www.linus.net/hdoc/articoli/articol...startposition=6

http://www.federicorubagotti.org/blog/inde...-solita-sparata

http://www.politicaonline.net/forum/showthread.php?t=181127

http://digilander.libero.it/infoprc/gelli4.html (search 'Cossiga')

http://www.aduc.it/dyn/dilatua/dila_mostra.php?id=186454 (ditto)

http://www.repubblica.it/online/fatti/kgbis/moro/moro.html

http://keypivot.com/cossiga-massacra-di-al...li-dellespresso

His favourite conspiracies are Masons]

First clue that this id whack is the source...prison planet, say no more

[GostHacked]

I understand the thought behind PrisonPlanet.com and Infowars.net. But like your MSM articles, take it with a grain of salt. Much of what is reported on those sites come from MSM sources. So you cannot discount it outright. Pundits will always tow whatever line they are supposed to tow.

M. Dancer Every source is in Italian. I love the effort, but without a proper translation, this all means very little to me.