A Musical (Lyrical?) interlude:
Leonard Cohen - The Future
Give me back my broken night
my mirrored room, my secret life
it's lonely here,
there's no one left to torture
Give me absolute control
over every living soul
And lie beside me, baby,
that's an order!
Give me crack and anal sex
Take the only tree that's left
and stuff it up the hole
in your culture
Give me back the Berlin wall
give me Stalin and St Paul
I've seen the future, brother:
it is murder.
Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant
You don't know me from the wind
you never will, you never did
I'm the little jew
who wrote the Bible
I've seen the nations rise and fall
I've heard their stories, heard them all
but love's the only engine of survival
Your servant here, he has been told
to say it clear, to say it cold:
It's over, it ain't going
any further
And now the wheels of heaven stop
you feel the devil's riding crop
Get ready for the future:
it is murder
Things are going to slide ...
There'll be the breaking of the ancient
western code
Your private life will suddenly explode
There'll be phantoms
There'll be fires on the road
and the white man dancing
You'll see a woman
hanging upside down
her features covered by her fallen gown
and all the lousy little poets
coming round
tryin' to sound like Charlie Manson
and the white man dancin'
Give me back the Berlin wall
Give me Stalin and St Paul
Give me Christ
or give me Hiroshima
Destroy another fetus now
We don't like children anyhow
I've seen the future, baby:
it is murder
I guess I am what you call a 'lurker', since i don't comment. I just consider myself a reader of blogs ... not necessarily inclined to comment unless the ignorance is beyond belief; then i too will blow-off real life to carefully correct (that ever ubiquitous) 'someone' on the internet who is clearly wrong. :-)
While I don't expect anything in particular and am always impressed at what you-all have done (and continue to do with the internet, congrats on your NetRoots convention) with the internet and increasing our ability to obtain and share REAL NEWS ...
I must confess I have been something of a troll on various blogs today because I am surprised that none of you (my favorite sites) have made mention of Nelson Mandela's 90th!!! Birthday. It's just a double super-happy Friday for freedom fighters everywhere!
He's pretty damn awesome, affected some serious change in the largest continent on our planet, continues to work for those in need, and is pretty damn old (yet still alive - good karma works wonders, eh?) for a man who spent over two decades in prison.
So today, I'm a lurker/troll of BIRTHDAY LOVE for Nelson Mandela on all my favorite sites. (consider yourself quite fortunate, eh?)
the free market guys put 300 billion on the table for the
privileged group called "too big to fail"the guy that don't
have to really be concerned about risk......they cried yrs. ago about prudential controls so we removed and now they have done what many do with power....they exploit the less powerful usually the working class. this has been unbelievable to me....they have kept wages down but the inflation of stock profit has been through the roof. this relationship between wall street and the white house has to be watched....and now the arrogance of phil gramm, bush and mccain sickens me. if these two institutions freddie/fannie fail we are screwed..especially now that we are in deeper($). this is old fashion usery and it has to stop........bush makes me nauseated with his comments about us/media knowing the economy....he knows what damage this has done he doesn't care because there are always winners somewhere. personally i'd like to see the market hit botom so we can start over. obama will have his hands full. this subprime/foreclosure fiasco has many impacts victums.
A conservative Republican with the integrity to recognize the threat to America that is Bushite power and Rovian politics, Larry Hunter, co-author of the Contract with America, endorses Obama.
Why is anyone surprised McCain leaked advance word of Obama's trip. Didn't he tip off the Vietnamese to the Pittsburgh Steeler defensive lineup ten years in advance?
Why is anyone surprised McCain leaked advance word of Obama's trip. Didn't he tip off the Vietnamese to the Pittsburgh Steeler defensive lineup ten years in advance?
the free market guys put 300 billion on the table for the
privileged group called "too big to fail"the guy that don't
have to really be concerned about risk......they cried yrs. ago about prudential controls so we removed and now they have done what many do with power....they exploit the less powerful usually the working class. this has been unbelievable to me....they have kept wages down but the inflation of stock profit has been through the roof. this relationship between wall street and the white house has to be watched....and now the arrogance of phil gramm, bush and mccain sickens me. if these two institutions freddie/fannie fail we are screwed..especially now that we are in deeper($). this is old fashion usery and it has to stop........bush makes me nauseated with his comments about us/media knowing the economy....he knows what damage this has done he doesn't care because there are always winners somewhere. personally i'd like to see the market hit botom so we can start over. obama will have his hands full. this subprime/foreclosure fiasco has many impacts victums.
Point taken. It will take longer than two terms. People, be vigilant and never forget what has happened in these 30+ years of corporate control.
the free market guys put 300 billion on the table for the
privileged group called "too big to fail"the guy that don't
have to really be concerned about risk......they cried yrs. ago about prudential controls so we removed and now they have done what many do with power....they exploit the less powerful usually the working class. this has been unbelievable to me....they have kept wages down but the inflation of stock profit has been through the roof. this relationship between wall street and the white house has to be watched....and now the arrogance of phil gramm, bush and mccain sickens me. if these two institutions freddie/fannie fail we are screwed..especially now that we are in deeper($). this is old fashion usery and it has to stop........bush makes me nauseated with his comments about us/media knowing the economy....he knows what damage this has done he doesn't care because there are always winners somewhere. personally i'd like to see the market hit botom so we can start over. obama will have his hands full. this subprime/foreclosure fiasco has many impacts victums.
Point taken. It will take longer than two terms. People, be vigilant and never forget what has happened in these 30+ years of corporate control.
ron i'm glad you can figure out my poor writing style
but i know you have an understanding for this since i read your entries. these social strategies behind the talk of free markets piss me off.......as you can tell.
The comment "Just look at John Conyers. He wrote a book that practically outlined a complete case for impeachment, and then said he wouldn't support impeachment. We NOW need him to change his mind one more time...." is painfully true.
All of the un-impeached, un-caricerated members of the boosh cartel will be laughing it up as Fauxnews pundits by mid 2009.
the free market guys put 300 billion on the table for the
privileged group called "too big to fail"the guy that don't
have to really be concerned about risk......they cried yrs. ago about prudential controls so we removed and now they have done what many do with power....they exploit the less powerful usually the working class. this has been unbelievable to me....they have kept wages down but the inflation of stock profit has been through the roof. this relationship between wall street and the white house has to be watched....and now the arrogance of phil gramm, bush and mccain sickens me. if these two institutions freddie/fannie fail we are screwed..especially now that we are in deeper($). this is old fashion usery and it has to stop........bush makes me nauseated with his comments about us/media knowing the economy....he knows what damage this has done he doesn't care because there are always winners somewhere. personally i'd like to see the market hit botom so we can start over. obama will have his hands full. this subprime/foreclosure fiasco has many impacts victums.
Point taken. It will take longer than two terms. People, be vigilant and never forget what has happened in these 30+ years of corporate control.
ron i'm glad you can figure out my poor writing style
but i know you have an understanding for this since i read your entries. these social strategies behind the talk of free markets piss me off.......as you can tell.
You did just fine. Sometimes we have to simplify it for others though.
That's awesome. If the New Yorker had even a sliver of journalistic courage it would run this next.
They tried to explain the cover as satire and the article inside is supposed to be more revealing of Obama in a positive manner. The problem is, a picture always speaks louder than words. The words will not be read by the majority.
I just wish the people would turn their attention away from the leaders and have a good, long look at the rulers. It would be easier to run the President out of town than the people he owes.
New Yorkers can finally check the calories of fast food. Nothing new for me, but a diploma ain't worth anything nowadays. [Of course, being the WSJ, it also lies about the economy being strong for most of this decade.]
Oh, and I mentioned this before, but McCain sponges off social security while demanding it be "reformed".
wow i mean unbelievable collecting for about 8yrs. he has been collecting $ from the government his entire life he makes what did it say400k and his wife millions wow and he needs to collect ss.....and they can't pay their property tax in california.....who's the elite
It is more than appreciated that the BEST website for news and video has a daily open thread. Although I don't post often, I do when I have something to say or ask.
One thing has me puzzled about the Saddam conviction and eventual hanging.
WHY HAS NO REPORTER OR BLOGGER ASKED,"WHAT HAPPENED TO HIS BODY DOUBLES???
Saddam was known to have several for security and protection reasons. How do we and the Iraqis know the REAL Saddam was hung?? He was our puppet once you know.
Major unanswered questions:
1. Why has no one asked GW or Booker T.Elementary, what station was on when GW saw the 'plane' hit?
2. When Bush made this statement, why did he 'fib' to a child in a forum on national television?
3. Why no inquiry into Bhutto's statement in an interview with Mr. Frost that Bin Laden had been killed in late October of 2001?
4.The unit assigned to 'hunt down'(now dismantled) referred to Bin Laden as "UBL", meaning Usama Bin Laden. Why over time has it been changed to Osama?
5. The flag sown onto military uniforms is now shown as sown on backwards...why?
6. WHEN DID CONGRESS ISSUE A DECLARATION OF WAR??
7. When talking of the destruction done in N.Y. on 9/11, why does no one mention the destruction of vehicles miles and miles from the Trade Centers?
8.How did GW and his staff at Booker T. know the school was not a target(his itinerary was known), so there fore he could continue listening to the children read?
9. How did they know the attacks were over or there would be no more?
Something new I learned:Research for yourself...Learn the TRUTH
The area of the Pentagon hit ..the accounting dept. that held papers and was investigating the 2 trillion missing from its budget was the only dept that had moved into that area(whala..papers destroyed). By the way, this may be where the financing of 9/11 came from, it still has not been investigated.
The Shankesville 'hole' was there prior to the 'plane' crashing. Early virtual earth shows this to be true.
Jimmy Carter's administration held a peace accord with Israel and Arabs on 9/11 during the 70's. Lindberg gave a major speech on 9/11. Google and read for yourself.GHWB gave a major speech on 9/11. All coincidences??? Not when you research and read the content of each.
Something new I learned:Research for yourself…Learn the TRUTH
The area of the Pentagon hit ..the accounting dept. that held papers and was investigating the 2 trillion missing from its budget was the only dept that had moved into that area(whala..papers destroyed). By the way, this may be where the financing of 9/11 came from, it still has not been investigated.
The Shankesville ‘hole’ was there prior to the ‘plane’ crashing. Early virtual earth shows this to be true.
Jimmy Carter’s administration held a peace accord with Israel and Arabs on 9/11 during the 70’s. Lindberg gave a major speech on 9/11. Google and read for yourself.GHWB gave a major speech on 9/11. All coincidences??? Not when you research and read the content of each.
Don't forget that Allende was overthrown by Pinochet in Chile on 9/11 in 1973.
The Dark Knight may well be the most conservative movie since 300. There’s just no arguing that the Joker is al-Qaeda and Batman George W. Bush. In between are the citizens of Gotham who have a choice: They can cave to terror, turn on their protector and blame his aggressive crime fighting for the rise of the Joker, or they can understand that appeasing a criminal status quo in their city doesn’t convince the Joker’s of the world to see the light and enroll at community college.
...not me. read that somewhere. had to share the laugh.
Joe: I didn't really think 300 was conservative, because the Spartans would win. I did feel that TDK seemed like a pro-surveillance film by the end, but it was surprisingly liberal on the death penalty, so I'll let it pass.
One reason the GOP can get away with what it does in this nation is that we ignore some 20-30,000 years of our history, still. The Pre-Columbian era here in the US had societies like the Mound Builders, like Cahokia and Poverty Point, it had the Anasazi, it had the settled hunter-gatherers of the Northwest, it had the greatest diversity ethnically and linguistically in California (which has never owned up to what it did to its Indian population, and actually pretends it doesn't exist still), it had, yes, dog-using nomads on the Great Plains, it had growing federations of tribes large and small, and the Mound Builder cities were often bigger than their Medieval European equivalent. When that history can be ignored in place of what is taught, it becomes little wonder that the GOP can randomly invade Iraq and nobody complain that's worth a damn.
I guess I am what you call a 'lurker', since i don't comment. I just consider myself a reader of blogs ... not necessarily inclined to comment unless the ignorance is beyond belief; then i too will blow-off real life to carefully correct (that ever ubiquitous) 'someone' on the internet who is clearly wrong. :-)
While I don't expect anything in particular and am always impressed at what you-all have done (and continue to do with the internet, congrats on your NetRoots convention) with the internet and increasing our ability to obtain and share REAL NEWS ...
I must confess I have been something of a troll on various blogs today because I am surprised that none of you (my favorite sites) have made mention of Nelson Mandela's 90th!!! Birthday. It's just a double super-happy Friday for freedom fighters everywhere!
He's pretty damn awesome, affected some serious change in the largest continent on our planet, continues to work for those in need, and is pretty damn old (yet still alive - good karma works wonders, eh?) for a man who spent over two decades in prison.
So today, I'm a lurker/troll of BIRTHDAY LOVE for Nelson Mandela on all my favorite sites. (consider yourself quite fortunate, eh?)
That Nelson Mandela's movement proved to be as benevolent as it did is a testimony to the wisdom of that man. Having researched what the African National Committee did, and the damage done to Bantu and Khoisan tribes by the Afrikaners, I'dve been mighty pissed once apartheid fell, much more so than his movement is acting.
Joe: I didn't really think 300 was conservative, because the Spartans would win. I did feel that TDK seemed like a pro-surveillance film by the end, but it was surprisingly liberal on the death penalty, so I'll let it pass.
The Dark Knight isn't quite as conservative as ya'll think, note the Law and Order DA turns into a monster, and the Joker represents the law of escalation. If things in Gotham got so bad a guy with a bat fetish had to put on a costume to deal with it, it's little surprise somebody and something as evil as the Joker's going to come along. It also sorta implies that the Batman is responsible for the rise in criminality.
"GOP whistle-blower names Karl Rove and others in election fraud conspiracy
Here, friends, is some news of vast importance--the beginning of a major lawsuit that will thoroughly expose Bush/Cheney's long conspiracy to steal their "victories" through election fraud.
It is a case of vast historical importance, not just because of what it will reveal about US elections since 2000, but, no less, because it represents the only way that we might actually prevent another stolen race this fall. By shining a bright light, at last, on all the topmost perpetrators of the fraud thus far, this suit will drive them all into defensive mode and, therefore, out of business."
The Dark Knight may well be the most conservative movie since 300. There’s just no arguing that the Joker is al-Qaeda and Batman George W. Bush. In between are the citizens of Gotham who have a choice: They can cave to terror, turn on their protector and blame his aggressive crime fighting for the rise of the Joker, or they can understand that appeasing a criminal status quo in their city doesn’t convince the Joker’s of the world to see the light and enroll at community college.
...not me. read that somewhere. had to share the laugh.
You say 300 was a conservative leaning movie?
Well that would explain the homosexual warrior overtones in the movie.
The Dark Knight may well be the most conservative movie since 300. There’s just no arguing that the Joker is al-Qaeda and Batman George W. Bush. In between are the citizens of Gotham who have a choice: They can cave to terror, turn on their protector and blame his aggressive crime fighting for the rise of the Joker, or they can understand that appeasing a criminal status quo in their city doesn’t convince the Joker’s of the world to see the light and enroll at community college.
...not me. read that somewhere. had to share the laugh.
You say 300 was a conservative leaning movie?
Well that would explain the homosexual warrior overtones in the movie.
It was a movie about the Ancient Greeks, if you get mah drift.
'The Elephant in the Living Room: Make Television Work for Your Kids'
New book
Old and new thoughts on televison and kids development, common sense and blinding obvious,
but TV isnt an unpaid babysitter its a mind rotting device for children when left on as background.
If the Chimp thinks that he can play the psychology of the market with the threat of off shore drilling, shouldn't the threat of energy and oil conservation also be enough to lower gas prices? And couldn't strict conservation measures be put in place much sooner?
Since the preznit has never alerted the media to his going to Iraq or Afghanistan for security reasons. And I believe McCain does the same. Is it fair to say that with McCain alerting the media to Obama's trip, is also alerting the people who are most likely to do him harm? And, also the terrrrrists .
The following is transplanted from a different thread (to prevent hijacking another important topic)
General_Rennenkampf @ 104:
Reno @ 97:
General_Rennenkampf @ 84:
Reno @ 76:
What. the. flying. fuck?
Is it really that hard for people to comprehend that angry Muslims can hate the US enough to come up with the simple idea of plane + building = boom? I mean, the Japanese took a whole damn fleet of ships all the way across the Pacific, hit everywhere at once, and nobody once expected or saw them coming! And Japan had equally justifiable reasons to hate us as Mr. Bin Laden.
lol you're kidding me.
They saw the japs coming. Just like they saw the "angry muslims" coming.
But let me point out that it was Cheney and not the Muslims who ordered the defenses to stand down. Why?
Blanket uncontested support.
No one would dare oppose the government lest they be called traitors.
Plane + building = boom. Yes it does.
But, taking said plane on a sight-seeing tour of the most heavily defended airspace in the world (over washington dc) during a known aerial attack before slamming it into the very center of military command - without help - is just not a believable scenario.
Neither is a nation straining to produce military weaponry and short of men, fuel, supplies, and options launching an attack like Pearl Harbor. It happened regardless of how likely it was. For a less cliche scenario, it was hardly likely that one battle of a powerful centralized state against eastern Turkish-speaking nomads (Manzikert) could spell the coming end of the Eastern Roman Empire. It did. Likeliness, or lack thereof, is nothing. History is all about the improbable happening.
You have valid points. I cannot point at any part of that and declare it as wrong.
However, it fails to apply in context.
Regardless of the fact that it was a strain on Japan, it was (obviously) possible. Strain or not, they had available to them the resources of a nation and their trading partners. And, the success of their attack was ensured by a US administrative decision to delay the warning for an hour making the attack - and upswelling of support - inevitable.
All in all, it worked out very well for the USA government.
As for the Turk situation, what we have here is an invading force which has to maintain supply lines fighting against a dug-in indigenous population with home turf advantage.
The British relearned this same hard lesson when they went after Afghanistan. Still waiting for the USA to learn it. The fact is, the more supposedly "enlightened" and "civilized" the invading force is, the more impossible it is to defeat a civilian population simply because the onus falls on you to protect/feed/etc the very civilian force you are trying to defeat.
There is only one way to win such a war - carpet-bomb and kill all of them.
Which, of course, the USA cannot do (and will not, regardless of who's in charge. It's morality, not might, which makes this an "aint gonna happen". The people would never stand for it, the response to the comparatively trivial prison scandal(s) are all the proof you need of that).
But 9/11 doesn't fit the bill of either of those situations.
In this case, we have the following bits of information:
The Bush family and Bin Laden family are known and documented corporate allies.
Usama, the supposed leader (possibly just frontman/financier) was personally known by George Herbert Bush whom, while in the CIA, trained Usama and helped set up his training camps - and then used this merry band of mercenaries as "assets" in a proxy war against the USSR.
George Herbert Bush, along with Dick Cheney, started the Iraq war part 1 using the gas sold to Saddam by Donald Rumsfeld as the popular (propaganda) excuse - but at the same time didn't bother to hide the fact that it was over oil.. or, to be more precise, over the fact that Saddam wouldn't let them steal Iraq oil by slant-drilling from Kuwait.
Problem:
Support slipped with the American population, as evidenced by the popularity of one Bill Clinton who did not make more war part of his campaign.
So they paused the war (which pissed shwartz off so bad he resigned in disgust), pulled out, and handed the control to Clinton.
Clinton dropped the name Usama into the spin machine, and took a token shot at him. He also solidified the conditions which allowed the MSM to spin the current debacle into anything they wanted it to be (the death of the fairness doctrine, and changes to ownership laws).
Meanwhile, as the people were distracted by a bit of presidue on a blue dress, pieces were moved and backstory's created - such as the Cole, where investigation was made impossible due to US Administrative interference.
Also interesting to note, the first attack on the wtc came but days into the Clinton administration, and reportedly with no warning. I believe that makes it a republican failure. Just like the second attack - which was by the same group, George H Bush's CIA asset militia. Cute.
Enter the NeoCons. And the return of Bu$hCo to power (I shouldn't have to mention the suspicious circumstances of that election, nor the fact it is illegal for the court to appoint POTUS).
Using prior knowledge of (classified) military training exercises, the nation was attacked in ways that emulated the secret training missions making an immediate response unlikely at best. Unfortunately (for the attackers), The attack was only a partial success because it took too long.
And the official story is that the Attack On America was carried out not by a nation that would have to strain to achieve this near-impossible goal, but rather by some arabs who lived in a cave somewhere in the country where the Taliban wouldn't allow Enron to build their pipeline... yes, the same Enron which, immediately after, was financially gutted and had it's CEO marginalized...
Another Pearl Harbor later, they have the support they lacked previously and the Iraq War part 2 was launched.
By 2 of the 3 guys who had their hands in starting the first war for oil, and the son of the 3rd.
Here is an accurate conversation record leading up to my long-ass response.
jimmiraybob:
Ruthless People:
Al-Queda tried but couldn't bring down America, that job has been done by the GOP.
And you don't think that Al Qaeda didn't exploit our greatest weakness, the far right, reactionary Bush administration, their knee-jerk right wing supporters, a lame MSM too cowed by corporate ownership and timidity to do anything other than cheer lead, and an American public too fearful and reactionary to think? Stir in Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, a willing Republican party, oil, and fear to be exploited and here we are. America will be lucky to survive Al Qaeda's Bush II bomb.
Reno:
The only problem with this is that it assumes Al Qaeda was able to exploit the chain of command and, using prior knowledge of secret training missions, was able to thwart NORAD and it's $30B yearly budget without the assistance of the highest level of government.
At some point, people have to come to grips with the idea that Al Qaeda and GOP are the same bloody thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is/was Al Qaeda not run by one Usama Bin Laden, trained and armed by none other than George Herbert Bush? Are the Bush and Bin Laden families not business partners in oil and munitions?
And has this not all added astronomical capital to their bank accounts?
A vote for the GOP is a vote for the Majahudin.
General:
What. the. flying. fuck?
Is it really that hard for people to comprehend that angry Muslims can hate the US enough to come up with the simple idea of plane + building = boom? I mean, the Japanese took a whole damn fleet of ships all the way across the Pacific, hit everywhere at once, and nobody once expected or saw them coming! And Japan had equally justifiable reasons to hate us as Mr. Bin Laden.
Reno:
lol you're kidding me.
They saw the japs coming. Just like they saw the "angry muslims" coming.
But let me point out that it was Cheney and not the Muslims who ordered the defenses to stand down. Why? Blanket uncontested support.
No one would dare oppose the government lest they be called traitors.
Plane + building = boom. Yes it does.
But, taking said plane on a sight-seeing tour of the most heavily defended airspace in the world (over washington dc) during a known aerial attack before slamming it into the very center of military command - without help - is just not a believable scenario.
General:
Neither is a nation straining to produce military weaponry and short of men, fuel, supplies, and options launching an attack like Pearl Harbor. It happened regardless of how likely it was. For a less cliche scenario, it was hardly likely that one battle of a powerful centralized state against eastern Turkish-speaking nomads (Manzikert) could spell the coming end of the Eastern Roman Empire. It did. Likeliness, or lack thereof, is nothing. History is all about the improbable happening.
now heres my take on all this, if i was a terriorist i wouldnt waste my time on two worthless buildings in downtown manhatten, id take out the whitehouse , the house of congress, the pentagon, and the statue of liberty,
The following is transplanted from a different thread (to prevent hijacking another important topic)
General_Rennenkampf @ 104:
Reno @ 97:
General_Rennenkampf @ 84:
lol you're kidding me.
They saw the japs coming. Just like they saw the "angry muslims" coming.
But let me point out that it was Cheney and not the Muslims who ordered the defenses to stand down. Why?
Blanket uncontested support.
No one would dare oppose the government lest they be called traitors.
Plane + building = boom. Yes it does.
But, taking said plane on a sight-seeing tour of the most heavily defended airspace in the world (over washington dc) during a known aerial attack before slamming it into the very center of military command - without help - is just not a believable scenario.
Neither is a nation straining to produce military weaponry and short of men, fuel, supplies, and options launching an attack like Pearl Harbor. It happened regardless of how likely it was. For a less cliche scenario, it was hardly likely that one battle of a powerful centralized state against eastern Turkish-speaking nomads (Manzikert) could spell the coming end of the Eastern Roman Empire. It did. Likeliness, or lack thereof, is nothing. History is all about the improbable happening.
You have valid points. I cannot point at any part of that and declare it as wrong.
However, it fails to apply in context.
Regardless of the fact that it was a strain on Japan, it was (obviously) possible. Strain or not, they had available to them the resources of a nation and their trading partners. And, the success of their attack was ensured by a US administrative decision to delay the warning for an hour making the attack - and upswelling of support - inevitable.
All in all, it worked out very well for the USA government.
As for the Turk situation, what we have here is an invading force which has to maintain supply lines fighting against a dug-in indigenous population with home turf advantage.
The British relearned this same hard lesson when they went after Afghanistan. Still waiting for the USA to learn it. The fact is, the more supposedly "enlightened" and "civilized" the invading force is, the more impossible it is to defeat a civilian population simply because the onus falls on you to protect/feed/etc the very civilian force you are trying to defeat.
There is only one way to win such a war - carpet-bomb and kill all of them.
Which, of course, the USA cannot do (and will not, regardless of who's in charge. It's morality, not might, which makes this an "aint gonna happen". The people would never stand for it, the response to the comparatively trivial prison scandal(s) are all the proof you need of that).
But 9/11 doesn't fit the bill of either of those situations.
In this case, we have the following bits of information:
The Bush family and Bin Laden family are known and documented corporate allies.
Usama, the supposed leader (possibly just frontman/financier) was personally known by George Herbert Bush whom, while in the CIA, trained Usama and helped set up his training camps - and then used this merry band of mercenaries as "assets" in a proxy war against the USSR.
George Herbert Bush, along with Dick Cheney, started the Iraq war part 1 using the gas sold to Saddam by Donald Rumsfeld as the popular (propaganda) excuse - but at the same time didn't bother to hide the fact that it was over oil.. or, to be more precise, over the fact that Saddam wouldn't let them steal Iraq oil by slant-drilling from Kuwait.
Problem:
Support slipped with the American population, as evidenced by the popularity of one Bill Clinton who did not make more war part of his campaign.
So they paused the war (which pissed shwartz off so bad he resigned in disgust), pulled out, and handed the control to Clinton.
Clinton dropped the name Usama into the spin machine, and took a token shot at him. He also solidified the conditions which allowed the MSM to spin the current debacle into anything they wanted it to be (the death of the fairness doctrine, and changes to ownership laws).
Meanwhile, as the people were distracted by a bit of presidue on a blue dress, pieces were moved and backstory's created - such as the Cole, where investigation was made impossible due to US Administrative interference.
Also interesting to note, the first attack on the wtc came but days into the Clinton administration, and reportedly with no warning. I believe that makes it a republican failure. Just like the second attack - which was by the same group, George H Bush's CIA asset militia. Cute.
Enter the NeoCons. And the return of Bu$hCo to power (I shouldn't have to mention the suspicious circumstances of that election, nor the fact it is illegal for the court to appoint POTUS).
Using prior knowledge of (classified) military training exercises, the nation was attacked in ways that emulated the secret training missions making an immediate response unlikely at best. Unfortunately (for the attackers), The attack was only a partial success because it took too long.
And the official story is that the Attack On America was carried out not by a nation that would have to strain to achieve this near-impossible goal, but rather by some arabs who lived in a cave somewhere in the country where the Taliban wouldn't allow Enron to build their pipeline... yes, the same Enron which, immediately after, was financially gutted and had it's CEO marginalized...
Another Pearl Harbor later, they have the support they lacked previously and the Iraq War part 2 was launched.
By 2 of the 3 guys who had their hands in starting the first war for oil, and the son of the 3rd.
no, really.. you're kidding me, right?
Why would such a conspiracy make such a clumsy, ill-timed effort? 9/11 is so easy to fall into a conspiracy theory on, after all, plenty of it seems not to add up. Supposing this all-powerful secret group did exist, what would it profit by exposing its hand like this? It chances, after all, some Rorschach figure with enough paranoia and ruthlessness exposing it all. A conspiracy, given to a world of cloaks and daggers would not be accustomed to Hitlerian blatantness. Conspiracy requires subtlety, a sense of soft power as opposed to Hitler-type roughboot methods. Conspiracies gain nothing substantial by an expose of their methods through a 9/11-type event. An effective conspiracy would require transactions of money, and series of events that cannot otherwise be explained. The motive for striking New York was obvious, to strike terror into the US, damage its economy, and hit it symbollically. You can argue it did all of those, the sheer proto-McCarthyism directed towards Islam, the economic malaise that hasn't lifted since 2001, to create this sense of anger that is just what somebody like UBL would need.
Convincing the US to attack somewhere isn't hard, it didn't take much effort to get Westerners to slaughter Indians, after all, or the Southerners that were my ancestors to lynch. It would have taken little effort to convince Americans to hit Afghanistan and Iraq both without 9/11. We'd fought Saddam before, and a little moralistic spasm of "Must. liberate. oppressed. wimmenfolk." would have satisfied liberal senses of morality and conservative bloodlust. It took less even in the Cold War to justify an invasion. A conspiracy to create a spectacular event like 9/11 with such an...obvious way to hit something that would create that sort of speculation is, IMHO, stupid. It would betray an incompetence that something that requires the sort of planning that a 9/11 or 7/7 does does not allow for.
It also looks at a rather stultified population, and sees them as no challenge at all. Americans are too prosperous, too well off, and too happy to indulge in the fruits of that to revolt. It takes hard times to breed revolution and tough people. Bush's Administration is having the exact opposite effect of what you say the 9/11 goals were. American economic power is fading as the rest of the world rises. A group of (presumably) Western conspirators like the "Illuminati" or "Trilateral Commission" or the "Council on Foreign Relations" stands nothing to gain from China gaining power again, or the Third World slowly recovering from colonialism, and nothing to gain from a clumsy attempt at provoking an easily-led populace into Iraq or Afghanistan. Americans invaded 1 or more Central and South American and Caribbean islands a decade for a long time. Why would striking an even less-prepared place like Iraq or Afghanistan be any harder to draw people into?
And one more thing, the guys with the homefield advantage were the Byzantines, not the Seljuks at Manzikert. Constantinople had ruled Anatolia for centuries, and had every homefield advantage you could think of...
I just wanted to say that video is a riot. They completely got down that inane soothing pointless propoganda style down. For some reason when that woman says , "my friend has a pool." I just burst out laughing because it was a perfect pointless parody. wow.
Why would such a conspiracy make such a clumsy, ill-timed effort? 9/11 is so easy to fall into a conspiracy theory on, after all, plenty of it seems not to add up.
A conspiracy is defined as a secret agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act.
Ergo, by definition and regardless of who was involved, 9/11 was a conspiracy.
And since the official story has so many holes and things that don't add up, it must be considered a theory as opposed to proven fact. A theory about a conspiracy.
As far as conspiracy theories go, let me be the first to admit there are some totally insane ones out there. The CD theory (Controlled Demolition) in relation to the twin towers is a classic example of this. While some aspects of the collapse had a strong visual resemblance to examples of CD, the idea has some fatal flaws. For starters, there was nothing "controlled" about that mess, it threw shit all over the place. Second, CD involves removing structural components so that the building can no longer support it's own weight - and then gravity (and not the explosives) cause the structure to fail and collapse starting from the point bearing the most load: the basement. Bottom up is the name of the game, where the towers were clearly top-down. CD in relation to WTC7 is a possibility, which opens further avenues of possibility (which I will not go into here since they are secondary to the matter at hand). Ditto "pods" on the planes, the very idea that they fired a missile into the tower a split second before impact is simply too stupid to consider. I mean, if "they" used one of their own planes mocked up to look like a civilian liner (as per operation northwoods), the dummy plane would not need missile pods. They would NOT spend millions retrofitting a plane with missiles and pods when they could just pack the hull with bombs and let impact set them off. And the Thermite theory is another one I have problems with, I think any evidence presented to support that would be circumstantial or simply misleading. Besides, while I may be wrong I think it is horribly inefficient to attempt to use thermite, with the properties of a liquid once ignited, for making horizontal cuts in massive columns. It seems to me that containment would be an exercise in futility.
Interestingly enough, there is a logical explaination for the collapses which also explains why the south tower collapsed first even though it was hit second and had less damage... and it does not involve the use of explosives or any other pre-rigging of the buildings. I won't get into that right now either (lol I'm such a tease).
Another theory which I consider unsupportable by the existing evidence is the one known as "the official story".
Supposing this all-powerful secret group did exist, what would it profit by exposing its hand like this? It chances, after all, some Rorschach figure with enough paranoia and ruthlessness exposing it all. A conspiracy, given to a world of cloaks and daggers would not be accustomed to Hitlerian blatantness. Conspiracy requires subtlety, a sense of soft power as opposed to Hitler-type roughboot methods.
Such figures have emerged over the years, and each time their patriotism questioned as they were crucified in the media.
As for subtle vs roughboot, that would depend on objective and the perpatrators.
In either case, I wouldn't call this a secret group.. We all know who Al Qaeda is, and most of us know who the Neocons are.
If it were a government black op against another govt, it would be subtle and completely below the radar. We wouldn't even know it happened, let alone sit here debating who's to blame for it.
If it were Islamic terrorists acting solo, it would be as attention-getting as they could possibly make it - and they would not hesitate to claim responsibility for visiting such a victory for Islam upon the infidel's home. At first glance, this seems to be how it went down - it was most certainly an attention-getter.
September 16, 2001
Osama bin Laden denies any involvement in the 9/11 attacks in a statement to Al Jazeera television, saying, "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons."
He would pull off the most spectacular attack in the history of terrorism, then dishonor the martyrs by denying the involvement of their group/cause? What a fuckin tool.
Of course, if it was an inside job that "burnt the Reichtag" to shock and scare the people into letting them do whatever the hell they want, it would again be as attention-getting as they could possibly make it - only blamed on Islamic terrorists.
Conspiracies gain nothing substantial by an expose of their methods through a 9/11-type event. An effective conspiracy would require transactions of money, and series of events that cannot otherwise be explained.
Actually, I thought they have done a very good job of hiding their methods. We don't know how many people were actually conspirators, or exactly how they set exploits in motion, or what actually happend on the planes. In fact, we cant even say we know who was on the planes, since passenger lists do not include the accused hijacker's names, proving conclusively that the lists have been altered or the story is pure fabrication. We have heard about money transfers in this matter, but we don't have a complete trail of the bills to the conspirators.
Addressing this point is further compounded by the Administration's flat-out refusal to allow proper oversight on this matter. Refusing to testify, hindering investigations, and the destruction of evidence have been common occurances on the part of the administration right from minute go. And as you know, any and all of those are illegal. The American Constitution forbids a urinary executive.
The motive for striking New York was obvious, to strike terror into the US, damage its economy, and hit it symbollically. You can argue it did all of those, the sheer proto-McCarthyism directed towards Islam, the economic malaise that hasn't lifted since 2001, to create this sense of anger that is just what somebody like UBL would need.
I would say it does a reasonable job of defining the result, yes. As for the motive.. I'll get back to that.
Convincing the US to attack somewhere isn't hard, it didn't take much effort to get Westerners to slaughter Indians, after all, or the Southerners that were my ancestors to lynch. It would have taken little effort to convince Americans to hit Afghanistan and Iraq both without 9/11. We'd fought Saddam before, and a little moralistic spasm of "Must. liberate. oppressed. wimmenfolk." would have satisfied liberal senses of morality and conservative bloodlust. It took less even in the Cold War to justify an invasion. A conspiracy to create a spectacular event like 9/11 with such an...obvious way to hit something that would create that sort of speculation is, IMHO, stupid. It would betray an incompetence that something that requires the sort of planning that a 9/11 or 7/7 does does not allow for.
True, however convincing Americans to pay for successive protracted wars (they want Iran too, remember) when the cost in blood and treasure goes through the roof is a different story. Remember that the people balked at Iraq last time, and Dick Cheney himself declared that such a path would quickly devolve into a massive quagmire. "Wimmin cant vote there" isn't going to cut it, Bush would be ousted after a single term. Possibly impeached earlier. And they would never get away with things like spying on Americans and retroactive immunity and outing CIA agents.
It's supply and demand.
Getting support for a military action is, as you say, not all that difficult. However, getting not just support but demand for the action is a different story. Once you have the demand to make war, you can supply it to your heart's content.
It also looks at a rather stultified population, and sees them as no challenge at all. Americans are too prosperous, too well off, and too happy to indulge in the fruits of that to revolt. It takes hard times to breed revolution and tough people. Bush's Administration is having the exact opposite effect of what you say the 9/11 goals were. American economic power is fading as the rest of the world rises. A group of (presumably) Western conspirators like the "Illuminati" or "Trilateral Commission" or the "Council on Foreign Relations" stands nothing to gain from China gaining power again, or the Third World slowly recovering from colonialism, and nothing to gain from a clumsy attempt at provoking an easily-led populace into Iraq or Afghanistan. Americans invaded 1 or more Central and South American and Caribbean islands a decade for a long time. Why would striking an even less-prepared place like Iraq or Afghanistan be any harder to draw people into?
It's been said a million times by just about everyone that the Iraq war is about Oil. Whenever someone says that, Exxon's $37B record profit comes to mind. But really? That insane profit is, IMHO, a side affect rather than the purpose of this exercise.
If you control the mid-east oil, you control China's energy supply. Control that, you control and regulate their growth.
Now you have to assume that this has occured to other world leaders as well, and you have to assume that such a blatant power grab would make a lot of nations nervous to the point of no support at all in the UN. In fact, given all the screwups making the case for war, they didn't really get the required support even with the terrorist bogey-man. They would need a distraction, a really REALLY big one.
Getting back to motive:
UBL/AQ motive would be very straight forward, they have stated it hundreds of times: they want the US off Arab land and also the Jews (that is "what they want", I make no comment).
The Neocon motive would be their published agenda: World Hegemony. They tell you that straight up. Only, they don't try to win by working hard and being better than the rest (quality), rather they skew the playing field, putting their opponent at a disadvantage.
Great way to conduct a war. Horrible way to build an always-advancing free world where all men are created equal. Think about it, if they spent half the money on developing hydrogen that they spent trying to sabotage everyone else, we wouldn't be using any oil by now and China's emergence would be a benefit to all rather than something to fear.
So we have this very sophisticated plot which includes attacking within the world's most heavily-defended air space (around DC), hitting the very center of the military command with surgical precision - it bypassed convenient high-yield targets to hit the pentagon in the one spot that had just been reinforced, containing the damage so that the ability to supply war was not impeded at all (and destroyed some inconvenient documents relating to pentagon spending and a few trillion missing bucks). It relied on inside knowedge of in-progress military exercises which the attacks emulated. Or is that vice versa? If it were Islamic terrorists, the attacks would have to emulate the exercises. But if it were an inside job, the exercises would emulate the attack. To control NORAD in such a way would require only the complicity of Rumsfeld and Cheney, the chain of command would take care of the rest with collective hindsight being the only way to figure it out. Of course, it would be somewhat silly to not associate the anthrax attacks with 9/11. And of course, it would be totally negligent to mention anthrax and not point out the interesting fact that the recipients of the mail-order terrorism were members of the press and the democrats in the house... aka, the media and the official opposition.
In connection with this crime, we have 2 possible suspects:
One is a group that has published an agenda of world hegemony and has the access and resources to pull it off with relative ease. This same group also has the access to interfere with, and even halt, any investigation into the terrorist attack. This group has, in fact done just that: interfered with and blocked investigation into the crime. It also has a cheering squad which questions the patriotism of anyone who even tries to speak out.
The other is a bunch of "religious nutcases" lead by someone with indirect ties to the first group, and provide both a bogey-man and an excuse for the first group to invade Afghanistan as a distraction/excuse while they set about their actual stated agenda of oil domination. This group has also managed for the most part to get away and remain functional - while group one, which vowed to chase group 2 to the end of the earth if need be, has stated that they arent giving group 2 much attention at all..
hmmm.
Given the connections between the two suspect groups, is it not a possibility that they are in fact one and the same?
I think it's possible. Complicity after the fact at the very least. No way around it, this government is not capable of the seeming incompetence that brought us to this point, especially in the face of how profitable it has been for close friends interests etc while the world falls apart for everyone else. The only alternative makes it deliberate incompetance, AKA treason.
I think they completely underestimated the American public though. Their methods of control via fear worked long enough to be popular while running for a second term, slander and sabbotage of the competition (plus questionable election results) contributed. I agree the west has become complacent and comfortable, and while they brag up their armies they rarely put their own asses on the line for what they believe in.
But this is different. This is forcing the people to wake up and actually look at whats being done to them by hitting them in the pocketbook. That was their flaw, they actually believed in the trickledown so when it failed their bullet-proof reputation went tits-up. If that worked, they would be pretty much guarenteed a clean get-away. They would just refuse to answer till people stopped asking - as per the JFK incident where the President was murdered in broad daylight and the government refuses to release the details. And the people ignore it. I think it is very unlikely the masses will take up their torches and pitchforks this year. But I think the government - especially the house and senate - should consider themselves on notice. The people are getting sick of the bullshit, they want answers and action so they can go back to sleep and put this all on ignore.
Why would such a conspiracy make such a clumsy, ill-timed effort? 9/11 is so easy to fall into a conspiracy theory on, after all, plenty of it seems not to add up.
A conspiracy is defined as a secret agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act.
Ergo, by definition and regardless of who was involved, 9/11 was a conspiracy.
And since the official story has so many holes and things that don't add up, it must be considered a theory as opposed to proven fact. A theory about a conspiracy.
As far as conspiracy theories go, let me be the first to admit there are some totally insane ones out there. The CD theory (Controlled Demolition) in relation to the twin towers is a classic example of this. While some aspects of the collapse had a strong visual resemblance to examples of CD, the idea has some fatal flaws. For starters, there was nothing "controlled" about that mess, it threw shit all over the place. Second, CD involves removing structural components so that the building can no longer support it's own weight - and then gravity (and not the explosives) cause the structure to fail and collapse starting from the point bearing the most load: the basement. Bottom up is the name of the game, where the towers were clearly top-down. CD in relation to WTC7 is a possibility, which opens further avenues of possibility (which I will not go into here since they are secondary to the matter at hand). Ditto "pods" on the planes, the very idea that they fired a missile into the tower a split second before impact is simply too stupid to consider. I mean, if "they" used one of their own planes mocked up to look like a civilian liner (as per operation northwoods), the dummy plane would not need missile pods. They would NOT spend millions retrofitting a plane with missiles and pods when they could just pack the hull with bombs and let impact set them off. And the Thermite theory is another one I have problems with, I think any evidence presented to support that would be circumstantial or simply misleading. Besides, while I may be wrong I think it is horribly inefficient to attempt to use thermite, with the properties of a liquid once ignited, for making horizontal cuts in massive columns. It seems to me that containment would be an exercise in futility.
Interestingly enough, there is a logical explaination for the collapses which also explains why the south tower collapsed first even though it was hit second and had less damage... and it does not involve the use of explosives or any other pre-rigging of the buildings. I won't get into that right now either (lol I'm such a tease).
Another theory which I consider unsupportable by the existing evidence is the one known as "the official story".
Supposing this all-powerful secret group did exist, what would it profit by exposing its hand like this? It chances, after all, some Rorschach figure with enough paranoia and ruthlessness exposing it all. A conspiracy, given to a world of cloaks and daggers would not be accustomed to Hitlerian blatantness. Conspiracy requires subtlety, a sense of soft power as opposed to Hitler-type roughboot methods.
Such figures have emerged over the years, and each time their patriotism questioned as they were crucified in the media.
As for subtle vs roughboot, that would depend on objective and the perpatrators.
In either case, I wouldn't call this a secret group.. We all know who Al Qaeda is, and most of us know who the Neocons are.
If it were a government black op against another govt, it would be subtle and completely below the radar. We wouldn't even know it happened, let alone sit here debating who's to blame for it.
If it were Islamic terrorists acting solo, it would be as attention-getting as they could possibly make it - and they would not hesitate to claim responsibility for visiting such a victory for Islam upon the infidel's home. At first glance, this seems to be how it went down - it was most certainly an attention-getter.
September 16, 2001
Osama bin Laden denies any involvement in the 9/11 attacks in a statement to Al Jazeera television, saying, "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons."
He would pull off the most spectacular attack in the history of terrorism, then dishonor the martyrs by denying the involvement of their group/cause? What a fuckin tool.
Of course, if it was an inside job that "burnt the Reichtag" to shock and scare the people into letting them do whatever the hell they want, it would again be as attention-getting as they could possibly make it - only blamed on Islamic terrorists.
Conspiracies gain nothing substantial by an expose of their methods through a 9/11-type event. An effective conspiracy would require transactions of money, and series of events that cannot otherwise be explained.
Actually, I thought they have done a very good job of hiding their methods. We don't know how many people were actually conspirators, or exactly how they set exploits in motion, or what actually happend on the planes. In fact, we cant even say we know who was on the planes, since passenger lists do not include the accused hijacker's names, proving conclusively that the lists have been altered or the story is pure fabrication. We have heard about money transfers in this matter, but we don't have a complete trail of the bills to the conspirators.
Addressing this point is further compounded by the Administration's flat-out refusal to allow proper oversight on this matter. Refusing to testify, hindering investigations, and the destruction of evidence have been common occurances on the part of the administration right from minute go. And as you know, any and all of those are illegal. The American Constitution forbids a urinary executive.
The motive for striking New York was obvious, to strike terror into the US, damage its economy, and hit it symbollically. You can argue it did all of those, the sheer proto-McCarthyism directed towards Islam, the economic malaise that hasn't lifted since 2001, to create this sense of anger that is just what somebody like UBL would need.
I would say it does a reasonable job of defining the result, yes. As for the motive.. I'll get back to that.
Convincing the US to attack somewhere isn't hard, it didn't take much effort to get Westerners to slaughter Indians, after all, or the Southerners that were my ancestors to lynch. It would have taken little effort to convince Americans to hit Afghanistan and Iraq both without 9/11. We'd fought Saddam before, and a little moralistic spasm of "Must. liberate. oppressed. wimmenfolk." would have satisfied liberal senses of morality and conservative bloodlust. It took less even in the Cold War to justify an invasion. A conspiracy to create a spectacular event like 9/11 with such an...obvious way to hit something that would create that sort of speculation is, IMHO, stupid. It would betray an incompetence that something that requires the sort of planning that a 9/11 or 7/7 does does not allow for.
True, however convincing Americans to pay for successive protracted wars (they want Iran too, remember) when the cost in blood and treasure goes through the roof is a different story. Remember that the people balked at Iraq last time, and Dick Cheney himself declared that such a path would quickly devolve into a massive quagmire. "Wimmin cant vote there" isn't going to cut it, Bush would be ousted after a single term. Possibly impeached earlier. And they would never get away with things like spying on Americans and retroactive immunity and outing CIA agents.
It's supply and demand.
Getting support for a military action is, as you say, not all that difficult. However, getting not just support but demand for the action is a different story. Once you have the demand to make war, you can supply it to your heart's content.
It also looks at a rather stultified population, and sees them as no challenge at all. Americans are too prosperous, too well off, and too happy to indulge in the fruits of that to revolt. It takes hard times to breed revolution and tough people. Bush's Administration is having the exact opposite effect of what you say the 9/11 goals were. American economic power is fading as the rest of the world rises. A group of (presumably) Western conspirators like the "Illuminati" or "Trilateral Commission" or the "Council on Foreign Relations" stands nothing to gain from China gaining power again, or the Third World slowly recovering from colonialism, and nothing to gain from a clumsy attempt at provoking an easily-led populace into Iraq or Afghanistan. Americans invaded 1 or more Central and South American and Caribbean islands a decade for a long time. Why would striking an even less-prepared place like Iraq or Afghanistan be any harder to draw people into?
It's been said a million times by just about everyone that the Iraq war is about Oil. Whenever someone says that, Exxon's $37B record profit comes to mind. But really? That insane profit is, IMHO, a side affect rather than the purpose of this exercise.
If you control the mid-east oil, you control China's energy supply. Control that, you control and regulate their growth.
Now you have to assume that this has occured to other world leaders as well, and you have to assume that such a blatant power grab would make a lot of nations nervous to the point of no support at all in the UN. In fact, given all the screwups making the case for war, they didn't really get the required support even with the terrorist bogey-man. They would need a distraction, a really REALLY big one.
Getting back to motive:
UBL/AQ motive would be very straight forward, they have stated it hundreds of times: they want the US off Arab land and also the Jews (that is "what they want", I make no comment).
The Neocon motive would be their published agenda: World Hegemony. They tell you that straight up. Only, they don't try to win by working hard and being better than the rest (quality), rather they skew the playing field, putting their opponent at a disadvantage.
Great way to conduct a war. Horrible way to build an always-advancing free world where all men are created equal. Think about it, if they spent half the money on developing hydrogen that they spent trying to sabotage everyone else, we wouldn't be using any oil by now and China's emergence would be a benefit to all rather than something to fear.
So we have this very sophisticated plot which includes attacking within the world's most heavily-defended air space (around DC), hitting the very center of the military command with surgical precision - it bypassed convenient high-yield targets to hit the pentagon in the one spot that had just been reinforced, containing the damage so that the ability to supply war was not impeded at all (and destroyed some inconvenient documents relating to pentagon spending and a few trillion missing bucks). It relied on inside knowedge of in-progress military exercises which the attacks emulated. Or is that vice versa? If it were Islamic terrorists, the attacks would have to emulate the exercises. But if it were an inside job, the exercises would emulate the attack. To control NORAD in such a way would require only the complicity of Rumsfeld and Cheney, the chain of command would take care of the rest with collective hindsight being the only way to figure it out. Of course, it would be somewhat silly to not associate the anthrax attacks with 9/11. And of course, it would be totally negligent to mention anthrax and not point out the interesting fact that the recipients of the mail-order terrorism were members of the press and the democrats in the house... aka, the media and the official opposition.
In connection with this crime, we have 2 possible suspects:
One is a group that has published an agenda of world hegemony and has the access and resources to pull it off with relative ease. This same group also has the access to interfere with, and even halt, any investigation into the terrorist attack. This group has, in fact done just that: interfered with and blocked investigation into the crime. It also has a cheering squad which questions the patriotism of anyone who even tries to speak out.
The other is a bunch of "religious nutcases" lead by someone with indirect ties to the first group, and provide both a bogey-man and an excuse for the first group to invade Afghanistan as a distraction/excuse while they set about their actual stated agenda of oil domination. This group has also managed for the most part to get away and remain functional - while group one, which vowed to chase group 2 to the end of the earth if need be, has stated that they arent giving group 2 much attention at all..
hmmm.
Given the connections between the two suspect groups, is it not a possibility that they are in fact one and the same?
I think it's possible. Complicity after the fact at the very least. No way around it, this government is not capable of the seeming incompetence that brought us to this point, especially in the face of how profitable it has been for close friends interests etc while the world falls apart for everyone else. The only alternative makes it deliberate incompetance, AKA treason.
I think they completely underestimated the American public though. Their methods of control via fear worked long enough to be popular while running for a second term, slander and sabbotage of the competition (plus questionable election results) contributed. I agree the west has become complacent and comfortable, and while they brag up their armies they rarely put their own asses on the line for what they believe in.
But this is different. This is forcing the people to wake up and actually look at whats being done to them by hitting them in the pocketbook. That was their flaw, they actually believed in the trickledown so when it failed their bullet-proof reputation went tits-up. If that worked, they would be pretty much guarenteed a clean get-away. They would just refuse to answer till people stopped asking - as per the JFK incident where the President was murdered in broad daylight and the government refuses to release the details. And the people ignore it. I think it is very unlikely the masses will take up their torches and pitchforks this year. But I think the government - especially the house and senate - should consider themselves on notice. The people are getting sick of the bullshit, they want answers and action so they can go back to sleep and put this all on ignore.
That's my take on it.
I would question that a 9/11 would have been necessary or planned for Bush's Administration to create mass hysteria. I recall that for a long time the Big Bad was Red China in films and TV, and that there were incidents involving repeated busts of Chinese spies and even a bad incident involving a spy plane. The fact that Red China was shaping up to be the Big Bad kinda gives the lie to 9/11 being planned. China was still considered to be Communist, and as a state speaking a Sino-Tibetan language that is mostly atheist, Taoist, Confucianist, and Mahayana Buddhists with Tibetans as the patsy group, it would have been relatively easy to mobilize a bunch of Indo-European-speaking Christians and atheists (not all RWers are raging Fundies) against a big scary Other which is yellow-skinned instead of Brown-skinned. The level of panic 9/11 created in the government itself convinces me in conjunction to this that a 9/11 would not have been necessary. Perhaps the invasion would have been Burma instead of Mesopotamia.
Login or Register to post comments.
McCain Serenades Gramm: ‘50 Ways to Leave Your Hoover’
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=2057
A Musical (Lyrical?) interlude:
Leonard Cohen - The Future
It just seemed somehow apropos..
Happy 90th Birthday Nelson Mandela!!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwMNQViwVQ7gbsbDtOTeGGuMGwZgD920GJVG0
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/mandela-a-man-of-all-the-people...
http://theleoafricanus.com/2008/07/17/bring-back-nelson-mandela/
I guess I am what you call a 'lurker', since i don't comment. I just consider myself a reader of blogs ... not necessarily inclined to comment unless the ignorance is beyond belief; then i too will blow-off real life to carefully correct (that ever ubiquitous) 'someone' on the internet who is clearly wrong. :-)
While I don't expect anything in particular and am always impressed at what you-all have done (and continue to do with the internet, congrats on your NetRoots convention) with the internet and increasing our ability to obtain and share REAL NEWS ...
I must confess I have been something of a troll on various blogs today because I am surprised that none of you (my favorite sites) have made mention of Nelson Mandela's 90th!!! Birthday. It's just a double super-happy Friday for freedom fighters everywhere!
He's pretty damn awesome, affected some serious change in the largest continent on our planet, continues to work for those in need, and is pretty damn old (yet still alive - good karma works wonders, eh?) for a man who spent over two decades in prison.
So today, I'm a lurker/troll of BIRTHDAY LOVE for Nelson Mandela on all my favorite sites. (consider yourself quite fortunate, eh?)
Please post another 'late night music club' with the Hugh Masekela song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKCk8o5xzaM
I'll be your BFF. ;-)
McCain has leaked details of Obama's trip to Iraq. Unconcionable.
And Is Gramm in or out? I heard he is stepping down again.
LibertyLover @ 3:
Off to lobby for another loophole for speculators.
Could you imagine the New Yorker doing a cover of McCain's rumors? And that faux cover is just a tip of the iceberg.
VitaMind @ 3:
thank you for that!
LibertyLover @ 4:
I think that's one step to the right.
Ron @ 5:
McCain Leaks Details Of Obama's Iraq Trip
I remember assassination jokes.
I remember BlackWater is In Iraq.
I wonder how much Security they control?!
San Francisco: Proposed George W. Bush Sewage Plant makes ballot
Phil "The Whiner" Gramm "Resigns" as the Co-Chair of McCain's Campaign. He Must Have Read That He Received This Week's BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Week Award. 7/19
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 9:
I suppose that it was just another senior moment. Wow, and some people think he's a heroe.
More Examples of Fat Cats Wasting Our Tax Dollars: The Air Force's top leadership sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on "comfort capsules" to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world, with at least four top generals involved in design details such as the color of the capsules' carpet and leather chairs, according to internal e-mails and budget documents. Production has already begun.
Ron @ 13:
outside of the sclm, I have not met a person. I mean that.
How They'll Try to Bury Impeachment and Fail
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 15:
StirFry @ 6:
I have a friend that tells this story to the right wingers that try to give him a hard time. It shuts them up.
the free market guys put 300 billion on the table for the
privileged group called "too big to fail"the guy that don't
have to really be concerned about risk......they cried yrs. ago about prudential controls so we removed and now they have done what many do with power....they exploit the less powerful usually the working class. this has been unbelievable to me....they have kept wages down but the inflation of stock profit has been through the roof. this relationship between wall street and the white house has to be watched....and now the arrogance of phil gramm, bush and mccain sickens me. if these two institutions freddie/fannie fail we are screwed..especially now that we are in deeper($). this is old fashion usery and it has to stop........bush makes me nauseated with his comments about us/media knowing the economy....he knows what damage this has done he doesn't care because there are always winners somewhere. personally i'd like to see the market hit botom so we can start over. obama will have his hands full. this subprime/foreclosure fiasco has many impacts victums.
A conservative Republican with the integrity to recognize the threat to America that is Bushite power and Rovian politics, Larry Hunter, co-author of the Contract with America, endorses Obama.
Why is anyone surprised McCain leaked advance word of Obama's trip. Didn't he tip off the Vietnamese to the Pittsburgh Steeler defensive lineup ten years in advance?
Nicky @ 20:
that's good stuff
constituent @ 18:
Point taken. It will take longer than two terms. People, be vigilant and never forget what has happened in these 30+ years of corporate control.
Ron @ 17:
Good! Shutting up a driveling right winger is always a good thing.
Ron @ 22:
ron i'm glad you can figure out my poor writing style
but i know you have an understanding for this since i read your entries. these social strategies behind the talk of free markets piss me off.......as you can tell.
Greg @ 16:
The comment "Just look at John Conyers. He wrote a book that practically outlined a complete case for impeachment, and then said he wouldn't support impeachment. We NOW need him to change his mind one more time...." is painfully true.
All of the un-impeached, un-caricerated members of the boosh cartel will be laughing it up as Fauxnews pundits by mid 2009.
constituent @ 24:
You did just fine. Sometimes we have to simplify it for others though.
StirFry @ 6:
That's awesome. If the New Yorker had even a sliver of journalistic courage it would run this next.
odanny @ 27:
They tried to explain the cover as satire and the article inside is supposed to be more revealing of Obama in a positive manner. The problem is, a picture always speaks louder than words. The words will not be read by the majority.
here's a short video on are buddy rove he needs to appear before judiary committee...in the end mcClellen
says he wouldn't trust him
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/46054-send-karl-rove-to-jail
I just wish the people would turn their attention away from the leaders and have a good, long look at the rulers. It would be easier to run the President out of town than the people he owes.
GNA!
Ron @ 31:
talk to ya next time
New Yorkers can finally check the calories of fast food. Nothing new for me, but a diploma ain't worth anything nowadays. [Of course, being the WSJ, it also lies about the economy being strong for most of this decade.]
Clean, cheap coal?
Are you kidding me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PabyFxD2mFc
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5794284122487235726&q=mountain%2...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4969917404359340513&q=mountain+t...
Oh, and I mentioned this before, but McCain sponges off social security while demanding it be "reformed".
Tequila @ 35:
wow i mean unbelievable collecting for about 8yrs. he has been collecting $ from the government his entire life he makes what did it say400k and his wife millions wow and he needs to collect ss.....and they can't pay their property tax in california.....who's the elite
Coal.
Cheap. Abundant. Cheap.
I'm convinced. Where can I get me a six-pack of that there coal stuff?
Hell, if it's so damned cheap, make that a case!
Grey wolves are safe. (For now.)
Obama calls the Republicans' bluff, and visits Afghanistan, with Iraq next on the agenda.
It is more than appreciated that the BEST website for news and video has a daily open thread. Although I don't post often, I do when I have something to say or ask.
One thing has me puzzled about the Saddam conviction and eventual hanging.
WHY HAS NO REPORTER OR BLOGGER ASKED,"WHAT HAPPENED TO HIS BODY DOUBLES???
Saddam was known to have several for security and protection reasons. How do we and the Iraqis know the REAL Saddam was hung?? He was our puppet once you know.
Major unanswered questions:
1. Why has no one asked GW or Booker T.Elementary, what station was on when GW saw the 'plane' hit?
2. When Bush made this statement, why did he 'fib' to a child in a forum on national television?
3. Why no inquiry into Bhutto's statement in an interview with Mr. Frost that Bin Laden had been killed in late October of 2001?
4.The unit assigned to 'hunt down'(now dismantled) referred to Bin Laden as "UBL", meaning Usama Bin Laden. Why over time has it been changed to Osama?
5. The flag sown onto military uniforms is now shown as sown on backwards...why?
6. WHEN DID CONGRESS ISSUE A DECLARATION OF WAR??
7. When talking of the destruction done in N.Y. on 9/11, why does no one mention the destruction of vehicles miles and miles from the Trade Centers?
8.How did GW and his staff at Booker T. know the school was not a target(his itinerary was known), so there fore he could continue listening to the children read?
9. How did they know the attacks were over or there would be no more?
Something new I learned:Research for yourself...Learn the TRUTH
The area of the Pentagon hit ..the accounting dept. that held papers and was investigating the 2 trillion missing from its budget was the only dept that had moved into that area(whala..papers destroyed). By the way, this may be where the financing of 9/11 came from, it still has not been investigated.
The Shankesville 'hole' was there prior to the 'plane' crashing. Early virtual earth shows this to be true.
Jimmy Carter's administration held a peace accord with Israel and Arabs on 9/11 during the 70's. Lindberg gave a major speech on 9/11. Google and read for yourself.GHWB gave a major speech on 9/11. All coincidences??? Not when you research and read the content of each.
Something new I learned:Research for yourself…Learn the TRUTH
The area of the Pentagon hit ..the accounting dept. that held papers and was investigating the 2 trillion missing from its budget was the only dept that had moved into that area(whala..papers destroyed). By the way, this may be where the financing of 9/11 came from, it still has not been investigated.
The Shankesville ‘hole’ was there prior to the ‘plane’ crashing. Early virtual earth shows this to be true.
Jimmy Carter’s administration held a peace accord with Israel and Arabs on 9/11 during the 70’s. Lindberg gave a major speech on 9/11. Google and read for yourself.GHWB gave a major speech on 9/11. All coincidences??? Not when you research and read the content of each.
Don't forget that Allende was overthrown by Pinochet in Chile on 9/11 in 1973.
McCain '08
Executive Order:
Bush says: “I can take your private property if I want to.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
I kid you not!
The Dark Knight may well be the most conservative movie since 300. There’s just no arguing that the Joker is al-Qaeda and Batman George W. Bush. In between are the citizens of Gotham who have a choice: They can cave to terror, turn on their protector and blame his aggressive crime fighting for the rise of the Joker, or they can understand that appeasing a criminal status quo in their city doesn’t convince the Joker’s of the world to see the light and enroll at community college.
...not me. read that somewhere. had to share the laugh.
Joe: I didn't really think 300 was conservative, because the Spartans would win. I did feel that TDK seemed like a pro-surveillance film by the end, but it was surprisingly liberal on the death penalty, so I'll let it pass.
One reason the GOP can get away with what it does in this nation is that we ignore some 20-30,000 years of our history, still. The Pre-Columbian era here in the US had societies like the Mound Builders, like Cahokia and Poverty Point, it had the Anasazi, it had the settled hunter-gatherers of the Northwest, it had the greatest diversity ethnically and linguistically in California (which has never owned up to what it did to its Indian population, and actually pretends it doesn't exist still), it had, yes, dog-using nomads on the Great Plains, it had growing federations of tribes large and small, and the Mound Builder cities were often bigger than their Medieval European equivalent. When that history can be ignored in place of what is taught, it becomes little wonder that the GOP can randomly invade Iraq and nobody complain that's worth a damn.
VitaMind @ 3:
That Nelson Mandela's movement proved to be as benevolent as it did is a testimony to the wisdom of that man. Having researched what the African National Committee did, and the damage done to Bantu and Khoisan tribes by the Afrikaners, I'dve been mighty pissed once apartheid fell, much more so than his movement is acting.
Tequila @ 44:
The Dark Knight isn't quite as conservative as ya'll think, note the Law and Order DA turns into a monster, and the Joker represents the law of escalation. If things in Gotham got so bad a guy with a bat fetish had to put on a costume to deal with it, it's little surprise somebody and something as evil as the Joker's going to come along. It also sorta implies that the Batman is responsible for the rise in criminality.
"GOP whistle-blower names Karl Rove and others in election fraud conspiracy
Here, friends, is some news of vast importance--the beginning of a major lawsuit that will thoroughly expose Bush/Cheney's long conspiracy to steal their "victories" through election fraud.
It is a case of vast historical importance, not just because of what it will reveal about US elections since 2000, but, no less, because it represents the only way that we might actually prevent another stolen race this fall. By shining a bright light, at last, on all the topmost perpetrators of the fraud thus far, this suit will drive them all into defensive mode and, therefore, out of business."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
Joe! @ 43:
You say 300 was a conservative leaning movie?
Well that would explain the homosexual warrior overtones in the movie.
Radically Moderate @ 49:
It was a movie about the Ancient Greeks, if you get mah drift.
'The Elephant in the Living Room: Make Television Work for Your Kids'
New book
Old and new thoughts on televison and kids development, common sense and blinding obvious,
but TV isnt an unpaid babysitter its a mind rotting device for children when left on as background.
If the Chimp thinks that he can play the psychology of the market with the threat of off shore drilling, shouldn't the threat of energy and oil conservation also be enough to lower gas prices? And couldn't strict conservation measures be put in place much sooner?
Since the preznit has never alerted the media to his going to Iraq or Afghanistan for security reasons. And I believe McCain does the same. Is it fair to say that with McCain alerting the media to Obama's trip, is also alerting the people who are most likely to do him harm? And, also the terrrrrists .
The following is transplanted from a different thread (to prevent hijacking another important topic)
General_Rennenkampf @ 104:
You have valid points. I cannot point at any part of that and declare it as wrong.
However, it fails to apply in context.
Regardless of the fact that it was a strain on Japan, it was (obviously) possible. Strain or not, they had available to them the resources of a nation and their trading partners. And, the success of their attack was ensured by a US administrative decision to delay the warning for an hour making the attack - and upswelling of support - inevitable.
All in all, it worked out very well for the USA government.
As for the Turk situation, what we have here is an invading force which has to maintain supply lines fighting against a dug-in indigenous population with home turf advantage.
The British relearned this same hard lesson when they went after Afghanistan. Still waiting for the USA to learn it. The fact is, the more supposedly "enlightened" and "civilized" the invading force is, the more impossible it is to defeat a civilian population simply because the onus falls on you to protect/feed/etc the very civilian force you are trying to defeat.
There is only one way to win such a war - carpet-bomb and kill all of them.
Which, of course, the USA cannot do (and will not, regardless of who's in charge. It's morality, not might, which makes this an "aint gonna happen". The people would never stand for it, the response to the comparatively trivial prison scandal(s) are all the proof you need of that).
But 9/11 doesn't fit the bill of either of those situations.
In this case, we have the following bits of information:
The Bush family and Bin Laden family are known and documented corporate allies.
Usama, the supposed leader (possibly just frontman/financier) was personally known by George Herbert Bush whom, while in the CIA, trained Usama and helped set up his training camps - and then used this merry band of mercenaries as "assets" in a proxy war against the USSR.
George Herbert Bush, along with Dick Cheney, started the Iraq war part 1 using the gas sold to Saddam by Donald Rumsfeld as the popular (propaganda) excuse - but at the same time didn't bother to hide the fact that it was over oil.. or, to be more precise, over the fact that Saddam wouldn't let them steal Iraq oil by slant-drilling from Kuwait.
Problem:
Support slipped with the American population, as evidenced by the popularity of one Bill Clinton who did not make more war part of his campaign.
So they paused the war (which pissed shwartz off so bad he resigned in disgust), pulled out, and handed the control to Clinton.
Clinton dropped the name Usama into the spin machine, and took a token shot at him. He also solidified the conditions which allowed the MSM to spin the current debacle into anything they wanted it to be (the death of the fairness doctrine, and changes to ownership laws).
Meanwhile, as the people were distracted by a bit of presidue on a blue dress, pieces were moved and backstory's created - such as the Cole, where investigation was made impossible due to US Administrative interference.
Also interesting to note, the first attack on the wtc came but days into the Clinton administration, and reportedly with no warning. I believe that makes it a republican failure. Just like the second attack - which was by the same group, George H Bush's CIA asset militia. Cute.
Enter the NeoCons. And the return of Bu$hCo to power (I shouldn't have to mention the suspicious circumstances of that election, nor the fact it is illegal for the court to appoint POTUS).
Using prior knowledge of (classified) military training exercises, the nation was attacked in ways that emulated the secret training missions making an immediate response unlikely at best. Unfortunately (for the attackers), The attack was only a partial success because it took too long.
And the official story is that the Attack On America was carried out not by a nation that would have to strain to achieve this near-impossible goal, but rather by some arabs who lived in a cave somewhere in the country where the Taliban wouldn't allow Enron to build their pipeline... yes, the same Enron which, immediately after, was financially gutted and had it's CEO marginalized...
Another Pearl Harbor later, they have the support they lacked previously and the Iraq War part 2 was launched.
By 2 of the 3 guys who had their hands in starting the first war for oil, and the son of the 3rd.
no, really.. you're kidding me, right?
yikes... the post above is blocked wrong, positions reversed. Swap my name for the general's (and vice versa) in the quoted parts above.. my bad
Here is an accurate conversation record leading up to my long-ass response.
jimmiraybob:
Reno:
General:
Reno:
General:
now heres my take on all this, if i was a terriorist i wouldnt waste my time on two worthless buildings in downtown manhatten, id take out the whitehouse , the house of congress, the pentagon, and the statue of liberty,
Reno @ 55:
Why would such a conspiracy make such a clumsy, ill-timed effort? 9/11 is so easy to fall into a conspiracy theory on, after all, plenty of it seems not to add up. Supposing this all-powerful secret group did exist, what would it profit by exposing its hand like this? It chances, after all, some Rorschach figure with enough paranoia and ruthlessness exposing it all. A conspiracy, given to a world of cloaks and daggers would not be accustomed to Hitlerian blatantness. Conspiracy requires subtlety, a sense of soft power as opposed to Hitler-type roughboot methods. Conspiracies gain nothing substantial by an expose of their methods through a 9/11-type event. An effective conspiracy would require transactions of money, and series of events that cannot otherwise be explained. The motive for striking New York was obvious, to strike terror into the US, damage its economy, and hit it symbollically. You can argue it did all of those, the sheer proto-McCarthyism directed towards Islam, the economic malaise that hasn't lifted since 2001, to create this sense of anger that is just what somebody like UBL would need.
Convincing the US to attack somewhere isn't hard, it didn't take much effort to get Westerners to slaughter Indians, after all, or the Southerners that were my ancestors to lynch. It would have taken little effort to convince Americans to hit Afghanistan and Iraq both without 9/11. We'd fought Saddam before, and a little moralistic spasm of "Must. liberate. oppressed. wimmenfolk." would have satisfied liberal senses of morality and conservative bloodlust. It took less even in the Cold War to justify an invasion. A conspiracy to create a spectacular event like 9/11 with such an...obvious way to hit something that would create that sort of speculation is, IMHO, stupid. It would betray an incompetence that something that requires the sort of planning that a 9/11 or 7/7 does does not allow for.
It also looks at a rather stultified population, and sees them as no challenge at all. Americans are too prosperous, too well off, and too happy to indulge in the fruits of that to revolt. It takes hard times to breed revolution and tough people. Bush's Administration is having the exact opposite effect of what you say the 9/11 goals were. American economic power is fading as the rest of the world rises. A group of (presumably) Western conspirators like the "Illuminati" or "Trilateral Commission" or the "Council on Foreign Relations" stands nothing to gain from China gaining power again, or the Third World slowly recovering from colonialism, and nothing to gain from a clumsy attempt at provoking an easily-led populace into Iraq or Afghanistan. Americans invaded 1 or more Central and South American and Caribbean islands a decade for a long time. Why would striking an even less-prepared place like Iraq or Afghanistan be any harder to draw people into?
Interested in your response.
And one more thing, the guys with the homefield advantage were the Byzantines, not the Seljuks at Manzikert. Constantinople had ruled Anatolia for centuries, and had every homefield advantage you could think of...
And Manzikert killed them.
I just wanted to say that video is a riot. They completely got down that inane soothing pointless propoganda style down. For some reason when that woman says , "my friend has a pool." I just burst out laughing because it was a perfect pointless parody. wow.
General_Rennenkampf @ 59:
A conspiracy is defined as a secret agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act.
Ergo, by definition and regardless of who was involved, 9/11 was a conspiracy.
And since the official story has so many holes and things that don't add up, it must be considered a theory as opposed to proven fact. A theory about a conspiracy.
As far as conspiracy theories go, let me be the first to admit there are some totally insane ones out there. The CD theory (Controlled Demolition) in relation to the twin towers is a classic example of this. While some aspects of the collapse had a strong visual resemblance to examples of CD, the idea has some fatal flaws. For starters, there was nothing "controlled" about that mess, it threw shit all over the place. Second, CD involves removing structural components so that the building can no longer support it's own weight - and then gravity (and not the explosives) cause the structure to fail and collapse starting from the point bearing the most load: the basement. Bottom up is the name of the game, where the towers were clearly top-down. CD in relation to WTC7 is a possibility, which opens further avenues of possibility (which I will not go into here since they are secondary to the matter at hand). Ditto "pods" on the planes, the very idea that they fired a missile into the tower a split second before impact is simply too stupid to consider. I mean, if "they" used one of their own planes mocked up to look like a civilian liner (as per operation northwoods), the dummy plane would not need missile pods. They would NOT spend millions retrofitting a plane with missiles and pods when they could just pack the hull with bombs and let impact set them off. And the Thermite theory is another one I have problems with, I think any evidence presented to support that would be circumstantial or simply misleading. Besides, while I may be wrong I think it is horribly inefficient to attempt to use thermite, with the properties of a liquid once ignited, for making horizontal cuts in massive columns. It seems to me that containment would be an exercise in futility.
Interestingly enough, there is a logical explaination for the collapses which also explains why the south tower collapsed first even though it was hit second and had less damage... and it does not involve the use of explosives or any other pre-rigging of the buildings. I won't get into that right now either (lol I'm such a tease).
Another theory which I consider unsupportable by the existing evidence is the one known as "the official story".
Such figures have emerged over the years, and each time their patriotism questioned as they were crucified in the media.
As for subtle vs roughboot, that would depend on objective and the perpatrators.
In either case, I wouldn't call this a secret group.. We all know who Al Qaeda is, and most of us know who the Neocons are.
If it were a government black op against another govt, it would be subtle and completely below the radar. We wouldn't even know it happened, let alone sit here debating who's to blame for it.
If it were Islamic terrorists acting solo, it would be as attention-getting as they could possibly make it - and they would not hesitate to claim responsibility for visiting such a victory for Islam upon the infidel's home. At first glance, this seems to be how it went down - it was most certainly an attention-getter.
From pbs.com:
He would pull off the most spectacular attack in the history of terrorism, then dishonor the martyrs by denying the involvement of their group/cause? What a fuckin tool.
Of course, if it was an inside job that "burnt the Reichtag" to shock and scare the people into letting them do whatever the hell they want, it would again be as attention-getting as they could possibly make it - only blamed on Islamic terrorists.
Actually, I thought they have done a very good job of hiding their methods. We don't know how many people were actually conspirators, or exactly how they set exploits in motion, or what actually happend on the planes. In fact, we cant even say we know who was on the planes, since passenger lists do not include the accused hijacker's names, proving conclusively that the lists have been altered or the story is pure fabrication. We have heard about money transfers in this matter, but we don't have a complete trail of the bills to the conspirators.
Addressing this point is further compounded by the Administration's flat-out refusal to allow proper oversight on this matter. Refusing to testify, hindering investigations, and the destruction of evidence have been common occurances on the part of the administration right from minute go. And as you know, any and all of those are illegal. The American Constitution forbids a urinary executive.
I would say it does a reasonable job of defining the result, yes. As for the motive.. I'll get back to that.
True, however convincing Americans to pay for successive protracted wars (they want Iran too, remember) when the cost in blood and treasure goes through the roof is a different story. Remember that the people balked at Iraq last time, and Dick Cheney himself declared that such a path would quickly devolve into a massive quagmire. "Wimmin cant vote there" isn't going to cut it, Bush would be ousted after a single term. Possibly impeached earlier. And they would never get away with things like spying on Americans and retroactive immunity and outing CIA agents.
It's supply and demand.
Getting support for a military action is, as you say, not all that difficult. However, getting not just support but demand for the action is a different story. Once you have the demand to make war, you can supply it to your heart's content.
It's been said a million times by just about everyone that the Iraq war is about Oil. Whenever someone says that, Exxon's $37B record profit comes to mind. But really? That insane profit is, IMHO, a side affect rather than the purpose of this exercise.
If you control the mid-east oil, you control China's energy supply. Control that, you control and regulate their growth.
Now you have to assume that this has occured to other world leaders as well, and you have to assume that such a blatant power grab would make a lot of nations nervous to the point of no support at all in the UN. In fact, given all the screwups making the case for war, they didn't really get the required support even with the terrorist bogey-man. They would need a distraction, a really REALLY big one.
Getting back to motive:
UBL/AQ motive would be very straight forward, they have stated it hundreds of times: they want the US off Arab land and also the Jews (that is "what they want", I make no comment).
The Neocon motive would be their published agenda: World Hegemony. They tell you that straight up. Only, they don't try to win by working hard and being better than the rest (quality), rather they skew the playing field, putting their opponent at a disadvantage.
Great way to conduct a war. Horrible way to build an always-advancing free world where all men are created equal. Think about it, if they spent half the money on developing hydrogen that they spent trying to sabotage everyone else, we wouldn't be using any oil by now and China's emergence would be a benefit to all rather than something to fear.
So we have this very sophisticated plot which includes attacking within the world's most heavily-defended air space (around DC), hitting the very center of the military command with surgical precision - it bypassed convenient high-yield targets to hit the pentagon in the one spot that had just been reinforced, containing the damage so that the ability to supply war was not impeded at all (and destroyed some inconvenient documents relating to pentagon spending and a few trillion missing bucks). It relied on inside knowedge of in-progress military exercises which the attacks emulated. Or is that vice versa? If it were Islamic terrorists, the attacks would have to emulate the exercises. But if it were an inside job, the exercises would emulate the attack. To control NORAD in such a way would require only the complicity of Rumsfeld and Cheney, the chain of command would take care of the rest with collective hindsight being the only way to figure it out. Of course, it would be somewhat silly to not associate the anthrax attacks with 9/11. And of course, it would be totally negligent to mention anthrax and not point out the interesting fact that the recipients of the mail-order terrorism were members of the press and the democrats in the house... aka, the media and the official opposition.
In connection with this crime, we have 2 possible suspects:
One is a group that has published an agenda of world hegemony and has the access and resources to pull it off with relative ease. This same group also has the access to interfere with, and even halt, any investigation into the terrorist attack. This group has, in fact done just that: interfered with and blocked investigation into the crime. It also has a cheering squad which questions the patriotism of anyone who even tries to speak out.
The other is a bunch of "religious nutcases" lead by someone with indirect ties to the first group, and provide both a bogey-man and an excuse for the first group to invade Afghanistan as a distraction/excuse while they set about their actual stated agenda of oil domination. This group has also managed for the most part to get away and remain functional - while group one, which vowed to chase group 2 to the end of the earth if need be, has stated that they arent giving group 2 much attention at all..
hmmm.
Given the connections between the two suspect groups, is it not a possibility that they are in fact one and the same?
I think it's possible. Complicity after the fact at the very least. No way around it, this government is not capable of the seeming incompetence that brought us to this point, especially in the face of how profitable it has been for close friends interests etc while the world falls apart for everyone else. The only alternative makes it deliberate incompetance, AKA treason.
I think they completely underestimated the American public though. Their methods of control via fear worked long enough to be popular while running for a second term, slander and sabbotage of the competition (plus questionable election results) contributed. I agree the west has become complacent and comfortable, and while they brag up their armies they rarely put their own asses on the line for what they believe in.
But this is different. This is forcing the people to wake up and actually look at whats being done to them by hitting them in the pocketbook. That was their flaw, they actually believed in the trickledown so when it failed their bullet-proof reputation went tits-up. If that worked, they would be pretty much guarenteed a clean get-away. They would just refuse to answer till people stopped asking - as per the JFK incident where the President was murdered in broad daylight and the government refuses to release the details. And the people ignore it. I think it is very unlikely the masses will take up their torches and pitchforks this year. But I think the government - especially the house and senate - should consider themselves on notice. The people are getting sick of the bullshit, they want answers and action so they can go back to sleep and put this all on ignore.
That's my take on it.
reply still in moderation, it'll show eventually... lol
Reno @ 62:
I would question that a 9/11 would have been necessary or planned for Bush's Administration to create mass hysteria. I recall that for a long time the Big Bad was Red China in films and TV, and that there were incidents involving repeated busts of Chinese spies and even a bad incident involving a spy plane. The fact that Red China was shaping up to be the Big Bad kinda gives the lie to 9/11 being planned. China was still considered to be Communist, and as a state speaking a Sino-Tibetan language that is mostly atheist, Taoist, Confucianist, and Mahayana Buddhists with Tibetans as the patsy group, it would have been relatively easy to mobilize a bunch of Indo-European-speaking Christians and atheists (not all RWers are raging Fundies) against a big scary Other which is yellow-skinned instead of Brown-skinned. The level of panic 9/11 created in the government itself convinces me in conjunction to this that a 9/11 would not have been necessary. Perhaps the invasion would have been Burma instead of Mesopotamia.
Login or Register to post comments.