EPT9-11 - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SerotoninsGone
United States40 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/08/29/tomo/story.jpg) | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
I. the bush administation has had an agenda of regional control, specifically the middle east. this agenda would be unrealisticly slow without 9-11. after 9-11 the agenda was put forth. a)i have shown through the pnac's own writings that they beleive in using the military for strategic purposes, especially in the middle east. i have shown that his agenda has already been incorporated into bush's policy, before 9-11, in the cheney resource plan. there was also a plan to invade afhganistan before 9-11. b)i have shown through bush sr's writings and actions, clintons actions, and even bush jr's actions(he never said a word about his agenda before 9-11) that there would not be support for aggressive military use in the middle east, unless some catasrophe happened. i also proved this point, with the writings of the pnac, specifically saying that there agenda can not be carried out in a reasonable amount of time without a "pearl harbor" like catasrophe. c)it is clear that the agenda and policy of the bush administration has continued after 9-11, as it was planned before 9-11. II)the idea of military/media involvement in creating false impressions or circumstances for war is not new to US history, or world history. this shows a clear capability to engage in failry horrendous behavoir a)i have outlined events in history that follow this critiria, most specifically pearl harbor. b)actions by our goverment on foriegn land, including mass murder, massacres, and overthrowing of elected goverments, shows very clearly that the government will sacrifice much life for political goals. c)i have also shown that the US has a history of testing chemical agents on its own citizens, and military. i did not mention plans that did not go through, which were more serious, but will if asked. III) i have shown a stong relationship between the bush administration and the companies making a profit off of bush's aggressive policy. a)employees(vice presidents, ceo's, etc..) have played large rolls in the bush administration. spefically cheney, and members of the defense policy board. b) i have shown that the osama family has also invested in some of these companies, and are set to make large profits from this war. c)saudi arabia also has investments in these companies. the bush administration refused to release info in this matter. saudi arabia is known to fund terrorism. IV)intelligence failure. the intelligence community had more than enough info to stop the 9-11 attacks, or atleast be better prepared. a)there were foriegn warnings of the attacks from egypt, russia, france, and germany b)unusual amount of short selling that would profit off of 9-11 c)the FBI had some of the hijackers on survielance. d)the phoenix memo. not only shows that the information was in fact being analyzed correctly to stop the attak, but also shows a role in higher level government to surpres this info. v) possible involvement evidence. a)Norad did not respond according to there official protocal. they were fully capable of stopping the attacks, but did not respond. b)bush did not even put himself into a position to order a shoot down, or even learn what was going on. he sat in a class room for 30 minutes after learning of the attacks c)i have shown minumal amount of damage occured on 9-11. i have conceded in the controlled collapse aspect of this issue. d)the intellignce community claimed to have not known enough abou the attacks to stop them. but yet, they knew everything abuot the attacks within 2 days. note that it took a year to find the unibomber, and we still haveny found who was responisble for the anthrax attacks. VI)propagand cover up. clear effort has been takin to mislead the people. this clearly shows the bush administration has something to hide. a)the bush administration has lied about its reasons for war b)the bush administration has forged evidence c)the bush administration has not given answers to the many questions surrounding 9-11. i have shown that the government is capable of 9-11(II). i have shown that it was necessary to fulfil there agenda(I). i have shown that there was further financial incentive(III). i have shown that before 9-11 the intelligence community had enough to prevent the attacks, but did not(IV). i have shown that during the attacks, there is substantial evidence that it was allowed to happen(V). i have shown a clear effort to cover up any wrong doing(VI). i think this is a reasonable assesment of what happened, and why. rather than making some specific conclusions, i would rather try to put things in perspective. i dont think the pnac are savage beasts out for conquest, nor does there writing suggest this. i honestly think that they beleive that a unilateral super power is the only way to glabal security, and especially national securuty(i can argue why i think this is wrong later). i dont think the bush administration played a direct roll in the planning of 9-11, but rather conscously neglected it. although i do think that either the cia was involved, or there was some what of an agreement about the circumstances, or both. i do think al-queda was involved. but i dont think they acted alone. a terrorist organization working with governmens such as the US, isreal, and saudi arabia, is the reality of the world. the cia even worked with an al-queda like organization to help prep the toppling of saddam. the idea that osama was directly responsible is rediculous IMO. he helps fund and give symbolic support for a terrorist organization. but he is walking around the dessert, with no high tech means of communication. the idea that he planed this, is not realistic. in fact, i beleive that he only learned of it 6 days before it happened. the US has created osama as a front man. similiar to the way the US demonized an intire country, to one man, saddam.. | ||
|
Gryffindor_us
United States5606 Posts
| ||
|
Iron[NM]
United States57 Posts
On September 07 2003 13:48 BlackJack wrote: ur a no-named loser and a complete fool. Stfu and stop posting here before you further humiliate yourself. Thanks for telling me that, hacker. You've "hurt my feelings." | ||
|
Iron[NM]
United States57 Posts
On September 07 2003 17:12 TeCh)PsylO wrote: i have conceded in the controlled collapse debate, but i think the rest of the logic is sound. iron, the idea that the terrorist were sooo well trained, does not hold up to the facts. for one, the hijackrs were apparently sophisticated enough to pull of such hiest, but they left a trail of evidence so deep a fourth grader could pick up on it. your average tv watching american is smarter than this. the idea that the hijackers were extreme radical muslims, plunging to there death for allah, also doesnt really add up. they were middle classed and educated. they by no means lived a muslim life style, take part in strip clubs etc.. there was even a tape shown on cnn that showed one of the hi-jackers giving a speach to kids in school, talking abuot how great america was and how education is important. the hijackers had very little flight training. they attended a small number of classes in flight school, and were reported to not being very good students. one hijacker, was even denied back into a shool, becuase he was such a poor student. these planes started out in differant places, going in completely seperate directions, but yet these unskilled pilots managed to hit the WTC within a small time frame, and with such accuracy.. You have no idea if even more terrorists INSIDE the United States exist. If Joe Shmoe who can't even speak English can get a license plate, walk across the border from Mexico into the US, or simply enter by flying with a fake ID and everything -- I am sure the people who flew the two planes into the WTC were more than comparable at doing so. Many other more targets could've been hit, but the fact that only the new wing of the Pentagon and the other one crashed does support that the terrorists maybe did not know how to handle fully a jumbo jet airliner. Come on now. If they received some type of training, I don't really believe it would be that hard to jack up the speed of an aircraft and steer it into a huge building in Manhattan. The hijackers were extreme radical muslims who through loopholes of the Book of Koran, were brainwashed and trained to believe America is the great evil, and if they carry out these acts, they will live in paradise forever. What exactly were you trying to prove with this statement? That because only 2 terrorists drove the planes into a giant ass building and the other two couldn't because of the fact people were aware of the other two planes hitting and fought back at the hijackers as well maybe they weren't trained well enough or had enough time to hit the White House or another important structure? | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Iron[NM]
United States57 Posts
On September 08 2003 00:13 TeCh)PsylO wrote: sorry, but u are not making much sense, and arguing based on faulty reasoning and no infromation. i have made my argument, and my summary, if u have something credible against something specific, i will respond to it. No Psylo, I made a rational statement. You just sound retarded on this issue. Sorry, but it's the truth (many would agree with me here too). Your resources of all of these diff. weird sites don't really prove anything else besides the fact that your ignorant in how you conducted yourself on this. Come on now, the "controlled collapse" of WTC by the US gov't? God damn man, you ever see the Okla. City bombing? That sucker fell right to the ground, and flung debree around the area just like the WTC did. Please, I am done with this issue. If your going to really think all of what you think it's true, you obviously know nothing about what happened on that fateful day. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
I only managed to do a little bit of research today, due to football (Ah, Sunday has meaning again!), but I found a few very interesting things that I plan to check out further. It might take me a while to dig up this kind of information (I might have to make phone calls), but needless to say I think the results will be very enlightening. | ||
|
iGgs
Russian Federation772 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
i dont see how resenting propaganda and a horrible quality of news has anything to do with me as an american though. | ||
|
GundamVX
United States1025 Posts
On September 08 2003 02:28 ObsoleteLogic wrote: It amazes me that you play yourself off as a true-blue American and then seem to bash the country at every opportunity provided. All your criticisms are negative and to the worst possible extreme. Those who love their country the most tend to criticize it more than just blindly believe in it. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On September 08 2003 03:07 GundamVX wrote: Those who love their country the most tend to criticize it more than just blindly believe in it. i stongly agree.. u focus on what i am arguing against, but not what i am arguing for. i am arguing for the troops in iraq. i am arguing for the people in this country that are paying for bush's wars. i am arguing for preserving the rights of americans. i am arguing for a seperation between government/corporation/media. i am arguing for a government that can level with its people(considering this is a government for its people, by its people). i am only arguing against things that appear to be illigitimate. to allow these things to continue in our country, without steep critisiscm, would be extremely unpatriotic.. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Furthermore, what basis do you have to judge the quality of news on? Comparing CNN to The Information Clearing House? Indymedia sites? Ah, yes, lets trust to these non-violent revolutionaries who often like to use the fist of Che Gueverra as a symbol. I am not defending the government as a whole; many things within it I strongly disagree with. The removal of the Ten Commandments monument, for example, or Roe v Wade. And yes, I agree - you must address the issues within your own country. Not slander the names of those involved. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On September 08 2003 01:26 Iron[NM] wrote: No Psylo, I made a rational statement. You just sound retarded on this issue. Sorry, but it's the truth (many would agree with me here too). Your resources of all of these diff. weird sites don't really prove anything else besides the fact that your ignorant in how you conducted yourself on this. Come on now, the "controlled collapse" of WTC by the US gov't? God damn man, you ever see the Okla. City bombing? That sucker fell right to the ground, and flung debree around the area just like the WTC did. Please, I am done with this issue. If your going to really think all of what you think it's true, you obviously know nothing about what happened on that fateful day. It's idiots like this guy that makes people like Obsolete and I look like we have been brainwashed by Bush. "debree" I swear this kid is like 11. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
as to the information, or logic, i have presented. there are some issues that i believe are rather circumstantial, but in the light of the big picture, it seems reasonable. for example, looking at 4 scenarios of 9-11 1)the government aided the attack in order to use it for its own gain 2)the government neglected to stop the attack, in order to use it to there own gain 3)the goverment did not aid, or know of the attacks, but then decided to use it for its own gain. 4)they did not know of the attacks, and are not using it for there own gain. these are minor differances with large implications. quote frankly any of them are realistic(except maybe 4). i would propose 2), but at the very least 3). i think 1) is possible, but a little to extreme. 4) is just naive. i think what is not circumstantail here, are all my points besides the intelligence failure, and possible involvement. the pnac's idealogy i think is clear. they publish there own writings, so we dont know of them through some secondary interpretation, but rather from there own work. they have specifically stated there ideals. the connections between the government and the natural resource/military industry, are not circumstantial. they are very real, and i dont think one can argue that there is a conflict of interrst. the idea that a government is capable of something like 9-11, is also fairly solid, given history.. the propaganda used by bush, is not circumstantial.. they have been caught in dead lies. they have been proven to forge documents. now.. it is perfectly logical to look at all the evidence, except the intelliegence and events of 9-11(circumstantial), and conclude that there was no government involvment. but, i dont think that u can conclude that the government didnt use this for there gain. this would imply situation number 3. they didnt know, but decided to use this for political gain. so.. in comparing situation 3 ) from situation 2), it comes down to some circumstantial evidence(except maybe norad). this is most likely the differance in our opinions(wont assume i know what u think). i recognize both are possible, but the problem i have with situation 3), is that it would require a hole lot of "coincidences" to occur. a hole lot of failure on the part of the intelligence community, and possibly people higher up in the ranks. all of which would supposedly have no relation to 9-11. it seams more realistic to me that there was conscoious neglect, than a monumental amount of coincidence, and a horrible case of "not connecting the dots". i am assuming that this is the differance between us. if u wish to persuade me, u should attempt to show me that the circumstantial aspects of 9-11 could have occured naturally. i am still open to changing my mind. and i honestly wish that i could... | ||
|
Iron[NM]
United States57 Posts
On September 08 2003 03:36 BlackJack wrote: It's idiots like this guy that makes people like Obsolete and I look like we have been brainwashed by Bush. "debree" I swear this kid is like 11. Shouldn't you be hacking or something? | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 08 2003 04:59 Iron[NM] wrote: Oh yeah, your right. brb.Shouldn't you be hacking or something? | ||
| ||
