|
On September 08 2003 03:30 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Theres a difference between negative bashing and constructive criticism. Criticism with the intent of positive reinforcement focuses on how things could be done better; not contempt-filled name-calling. And what you are arguing for is based on very inconclusive evidence. By no means would anything you have brought to substantiate the charges you have leveled hold up in any court of law.
You dont critisize criminials, you put them away. The only reason there is inconclusive evidence about negligence is because investigations aren receiving federal funds and are lead by less than trustworthy persons.
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.
If you can show some of the facts. wrong you are welcome to do so.
In a debate you can only disprove a source if you counter the facts. Just because you dont like the facts, doesn't make them incorrect.
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.
Looks like you value your religion more then your freedom. And i dont think psylo is accusing anyone yet or has made his case entirely. Just like most people he is just interested in the truth behind it all. This debate is a means of sharing views.
As such your criticism is welcome but dont limit yourself to calling sources useless.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
this is the most successful useless topic ever
|
On September 08 2003 07:32 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
these point to circumstancs 2 and 3 i posted above. these seem to be the only reasonable circumstances that could have happened. i think it would b more productive to focus the debate on the differance between the two. mostly trying to identify how circumstantial the evidence actually is.
2 or 3 is what i think happened, however, i think that the people debating against you seem to think that 9-11 was not used or was justifiably used as a reason to go to war with Iraq. But i think this is clearly not the case. Perhaps focusing on the connections between Iraq and Al'Qaeda, or lack there of, and if someone can find substantial evidence of the Governments prior knowledge of 9-11 (i think the second link i provided goes into that a little bit) that people cannot refute as 'propaganda' or claim to be an 'illegitimate source' would strengthen your argument tremendously.
On another note it took me about 10 minutes to find those sources, there really is no excuse to bash sources without searching for your own.
|
holy fuk!!!!!!!!!!!! stop this shit it will never end!!!
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 08 2003 07:32 Micron wrote:
this is the most successful useless topic ever
and this is the most usless post ever.
EDIT:I take that back. This is:
On September 08 2003 08:05 Cheez wrote:
holy fuk!!!!!!!!!!!! stop this shit it will never end!!!
|
and if someone can find substantial evidence of the Governments prior knowledge of 9-11
i have already provided some information on this.
for more:
fast forward to 1 hr 5 min 30 secs
npr broadcast
"there were lots of warnings" -rumsfeild
then there is this, showing that one, they knew, 2, they immidietly attempted to hide the fact they knew:
"Q Had there been any warnings that the President knew of?
MR. FLEISCHER: No warnings"
then there is the flight school information. read the second paragraph
"FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III described reports that several of the hijackers had received flight training in the United States as "news, quite obviously," adding, "If we had understood that to be the case, we would have -- perhaps one could have averted this." "
washington post
the article clearly shows, that the flight school information was not news, and perhaps, they should have averted this.
"Congressional investigation into Sept 11 attacks finds that US intelligence community was told in 1998 that Arab terrorists were planning to fly bomb-laden plane into World Trade Center" -nytimes
more government neglect:
15 hijackers should not have been given visas
key relationships between osama family/bush family/saudi arabia. also note some other rather interesting info in the article
"Security chiefs on both sides of the Atlantic repeatedly turned down the chance to acquire a vast intelligence database on Osama bin Laden and more than 200 leading members of his al-Qaeda terrorist network in the years leading up to the 11 September attacks"
cia agent alleged to have met osama
"In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term."
i mean.. how much more damaging evidence does one need??
FBI supervisor says he is trying to keep plane from flying into WTC
"On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
man.. i guess the info was good enough to prevent the gov. from flying. also note the other info in the article, especially related to the characterization of the hi jackers.
"Saudi Arabia supervised urgent evacuation of 24 members of Osama bin Laden's extended family from United States in first days after terror attacks on New York and Washington"
so.. in a time when american citizens were grounded, and rights started to be stripped away, the osama family was whisked away. now.. i dont mean to demonize the osama family, for im sure most are legitimate. but this still is just amazing....why wasnt the government protecting the arab-american citizens that were being subjected to harassment and attacks? hmm maybe becuase alot of that was being done by.... the government!
us media admits to being pussies
"The White House yesterday offered a detailed timeline showing that President Bush was first told on Aug. 6 that Osama bin Laden's associates might be planning airline hijackings -- speculation that was repeated several times in briefings the president received leading up to Sept. 11."
"(CBS) President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11"
of course he would oppose such a thing, then they might catch on to something....
now, i suggest u read this article a few times, just to let it set in...(latimes article can be bought, here is a copy)
"The board recommends creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception.
Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces."
i mean... stimulating reactions of terrorists cells?
i think that it this argument has been reasonable deduced to 2 options. the differance in these options lies within the "circumstantial" evidence abuot what the intelligence community knew, and did. the record seems to point in favor of option 2, that they knew, neglected to stop it in order to proceed with there agenda.
|
Psylo, I have a sincere question for you, and I just want an honest answer.
If there was a conspiracy regarding 9-11, that it was planned or that they neglected to stop it, several people would have to be involved, correct?
Do you honestly believe the involved parties would be able to take this risk, live with this guilt, and then none of them say anything about it.
|
On September 08 2003 09:37 travis wrote:
Psylo, I have a sincere question for you, and I just want an honest answer.
If there was a conspiracy regarding 9-11, that it was planned or that they neglected to stop it, several people would have to be involved, correct?
Do you honestly believe the involved parties would be able to take this risk, live with this guilt, and then none of them say anything about it.
this leads back to one of the main points i outlined in my summary. is the government capable of such a thing? when i began reading abuot 9-11, that was my initial reaction. i thought, there is no way in hell someone can do this... but, then i thought abuot it in relation to history and whathas gone on in the rest of the world. i have already provided many examples and links to show that the US goverment has a history of devious activites, many of which were directed at america. not to mention, the horrible amount of damage we are responsible outside of america. the cia is reportedly responsible for something like 6 million deaths. that is comparable to the holocaust... and dont think these were legal actions. so, in context, i do think that the us government, could do such a thing. also note that, in relation to the ideology of the bush administration, this would be a small sacrifice for the sake of global control. could they live with themselves? ask henry kissenger... understanding this point is a humongous hurtle in looking at all of the 9-11 information objectively.
edit: i wouldnt say the bush administration directly planned 9-11. i think at the least there was conscious neglect, and at the most problem some low level involvemnt with the cia/saudi arabia/osama relationship
|
First, there is no "Osama" Family. Its the "Bin Laden" family (:
I'd have to say its situation 3 - (can't comment much now, school.. bleh). We are, after all, a capitalist country. I do believe there was an intelligence, and reactionary failure on many degrees. One of the articles you posted above talked about the incompetence of the FAA, and hence the seemingly slow reaction by NORAD (which Serotonins posted a link about a few pages back). My opinion is there was, in the laxity of the pre-9/11 America, a lot of, "Oh, this'll turn out to be nothing," a mentality which was predominant then. Consider the Cold War - decades of things turning out to be just that, nothing. And when the reality hit, it was like a fire was lit under our collective ass as a nation.
As regards the corporate connections - consider that Halliburton is one of, if not the, largest oil wells service providers in the world. They make billions of dollars yearly already. Chevron, admittedly, is the largest importer of Iraqi oil in the U.S. Ah, but ChevronTexaco is also one of the largest providers of JP-8, a jet engine fuel, used by commercial airliners. Considering the great damage done to the airline industry by 9-11, and the consequential loss of money for Chevron, your conflict of interest there is weakened.
As for WMD, you yourself admitted it takes a long time to investigate these matters. Scott Ritter, one of the people you used as a source for your arguments, said himself that the CW/BW program in Iraq could be reconstituted in months - but that was in '98. What could they do with 5 years?
|
On September 08 2003 09:37 travis wrote:
Psylo, I have a sincere question for you, and I just want an honest answer.
If there was a conspiracy regarding 9-11, that it was planned or that they neglected to stop it, several people would have to be involved, correct?
Do you honestly believe the involved parties would be able to take this risk, live with this guilt, and then none of them say anything about it.
If you see how they cut federal programs like federal healthcare and schooling, in favour of the military, how can you reach any other conclusion?
|
On September 08 2003 09:48 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +On September 08 2003 09:37 travis wrote:
Psylo, I have a sincere question for you, and I just want an honest answer.
If there was a conspiracy regarding 9-11, that it was planned or that they neglected to stop it, several people would have to be involved, correct?
Do you honestly believe the involved parties would be able to take this risk, live with this guilt, and then none of them say anything about it. this leads back to one of the main points i outlined in my summary. is the government capable of such a thing? when i began reading abuot 9-11, that was my initial reaction. i thought, there is no way in hell someone can do this... but, then i thought abuot it in relation to history and whathas gone on in the rest of the world. i have already provided many examples and links to show that the US goverment has a history of devious activites, many of which were directed at america. not to mention, the horrible amount of damage we are responsible outside of america. the cia is reportedly responsible for something like 6 million deaths. that is comparable to the holocaust... and dont think these were legal actions. so, in context, i do think that the us government, could do such a thing. also note that, in relation to the ideology of the bush administration, this would be a small sacrifice for the sake of global control. could they live with themselves? ask henry kissenger... understanding this point is a humongous hurtle in looking at all of the 9-11 information objectively. edit: i wouldnt say the bush administration directly planned 9-11. i think at the least there was conscious neglect, and at the most problem some low level involvemnt with the cia/saudi arabia/osama relationship
I would like to see your evidence that says the CIA is responsible for 6 million deaths.
|
On September 08 2003 16:39 badteeth wrote: Show nested quote +On September 08 2003 09:37 travis wrote:
Psylo, I have a sincere question for you, and I just want an honest answer.
If there was a conspiracy regarding 9-11, that it was planned or that they neglected to stop it, several people would have to be involved, correct?
Do you honestly believe the involved parties would be able to take this risk, live with this guilt, and then none of them say anything about it. If you see how they cut federal programs like federal healthcare and schooling, in favour of the military, how can you reach any other conclusion?
The majority of money comes from Title One funds which is made up of mostly state property tax, not the federal government. Don't make up stuff please.
|
On September 08 2003 06:48 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
iron, dont taint a half decent debate. most people here have contributed to the debate with respectable opinions. your immature rants about blackjack are uncalled for..
Yes iron, take a hint, no one likes you.
|
Rumsfield: The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands.
|
I'd have to say its situation 3 - (can't comment much now, school.. bleh). We are, after all, a capitalist country. I do believe there was an intelligence, and reactionary failure on many degrees. One of the articles you posted above talked about the incompetence of the FAA, and hence the seemingly slow reaction by NORAD (which Serotonins posted a link about a few pages back). My opinion is there was, in the laxity of the pre-9/11 America, a lot of, "Oh, this'll turn out to be nothing," a mentality which was predominant then. Consider the Cold War - decades of things turning out to be just that, nothing. And when the reality hit, it was like a fire was lit under our collective ass as a nation
this is drawing a fine line between the situation 2 and 3 that i discribed. quite frankly i think that attitude "oh this'll turn out to be nothing", is not an excuse. this has to be at the very least neglect, in which people need to start being held accountable for. by u saying this, u are admitting that there was enough there, but it was not peiced together. but the links i provided in me previous post shows that it was pieced together enough for members of the government to stop flying commercial planes, and for bush to be briefed on the matter.. this points to option 2...
As regards the corporate connections - consider that Halliburton is one of, if not the, largest oil wells service providers in the world. They make billions of dollars yearly already. Chevron, admittedly, is the largest importer of Iraqi oil in the U.S. Ah, but ChevronTexaco is also one of the largest providers of JP-8, a jet engine fuel, used by commercial airliners. Considering the great damage done to the airline industry by 9-11, and the consequential loss of money for Chevron, your conflict of interest there is weakened.
do u not see a conflict of interest in the corporate connections here? i think this only leads to the second aspect of the scenario, in which they decided to take advantage of 9-11, wheather before or after 9-11 i think can be irelevant. but i think its important to achknowledge that the bush administratino capitilized off of 9-11.
As for WMD, you yourself admitted it takes a long time to investigate these matters. Scott Ritter, one of the people you used as a source for your arguments, said himself that the CW/BW program in Iraq could be reconstituted in months - but that was in '98. What could they do with 5 years?
the bush administration said we know where they were. they said they know how much they had. they obviously did not know these things, for they have not been found. even if they are found now, it does not make up for the fact that bush did not conclusively now for sure that they were there, but he lied and said that he did. clearly misleading the people...
u are drawing a fine line between option 2 and 3, and u are'nt showing many reasons why option 2 is not possible. i think one would need to show y option 2 is not possible, becuase of the ideological and financial incentives involved in the matter. option 3 either completely ignores these issues, or suggest that the bush administration, are the most objective moral people in the world.
|
On September 08 2003 17:35 BlackJack wrote:
Rumsfield: The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands.
but yet rumsfield stopped flying commercial airlines. the argument that the cia was just to overwhelmed does not hold up considering that the information actually was peiced together, hence warnings by the cia, germany, isreal, spain, russia, etc.... to win this argument, u will have to prove that the intelligenve community is either not able to peive together intelligence information, or that they did not peice it together. the latter has already been proven wrong...
|
Not overwhelmed. It was just on the bottom of their priorities. Out of all the threats, I think Bush put it best when you quoted him by saying something to the tune of: No one believed anyone could pull off such a devious plan and we had no idea they were so well organized.
Or something like that. Of course they knew it was a threat, but not a really important one. They had information it was possible but they didn't think it was likely.
|
so.. they had the information, and peiced it together, but they just didnt think that it could be pulled off.
now, compare this to the idea that there ideology and policy was to attack the middle east, but they didnt have the support. after 9-11, they jumped on this oppertunity(pretty big coincidence imo ), but then why cover up issues surrounding 9-11, and why lie abuot the war?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
