Your veiw on 9/11?

[Darkness]

Are you sure that the government didn't avoid giving a proper response to Katrina intentionally, and that it was just incompetence? Bush wasn't necessarily incompetent, he was just plain evil. He knew what he was doing the whole time. He was sort of like Reagan, an evil genius that knew he could get by with a lot more stuff if he pretended to be a complete idiot. The best way to cover up one's evil deeds is to pretend that they were mistakes.
The Patriot Act was too ruthless and efficient (as was the war for oil in Iraq) to be the result of pure idiocy. Idiots can't blame everything on terrorists, use them as an excuse to enact anti-constitutional legislature, and get away with it - it takes an evil genius to make the scapegoat look real.

The War in Iraq was ruthless and efficient? Are you playing us for the fool? Iraq was a disaster, not only for the civilians living in the region, but for our American military as well.

 

[T-Dawg]

The War in Iraq was ruthless and efficient? Are you playing us for the fool? Iraq was a disaster, not only for the civilians living in the region, but for our American military as well.

It was intended to cause lots of deaths, like the Vietnam War. Like the Vietnam War, it's planned to go on forever (although hopefully the protestors can stop it like they did with vietnam). The more deaths, the more profit they gain (whoever "they" are - most people will tell you it's the bankers, the Rockefeller's, the Federal Reserve).

 

[Darkness]

It was intended to cause lots of deaths, like the Vietnam War. Like the Vietnam War, it's planned to go on forever (although hopefully the protestors can stop it like they did with vietnam). The more deaths, the more profit they gain (whoever "they" are - most people will tell you it's the bankers, the Rockefeller's, the Federal Reserve).

Any evidence?

 

[McBell]

Do you believe the official story, or do you believe a conspiracy theory?

Neither.

The official story has as many holes as a sponge and the conspiracy theories remind me of the whole "God of the gaps" stance.

 

[T-Dawg]

Any evidence?

Eh, actually, I just heard it from a credible source (the Zeitgeist, I believe). I think they had evidence, I just forgot what it was XD. I'll tell you if I find the video again.

 

[MSizer]

Eh, actually, I just heard it from a credible source (the Zeitgeist, I believe). I think they had evidence, I just forgot what it was XD. I'll tell you if I find the video again.

Hey AmazingLoser, I think that's a pretty simple statement (that the war was intended to cause many deaths and profit is the result). I don't believe in any single way that the war is justified (I think VERY FEW wars are justified), and I think the war in Iraq was disgustingly unethical, but careful about using "zeitgeist" as your source, it's been discredited pretty badly. There are a lot of know false claims in that movie. I'm not disagreeing with you though that the was is evil. I think Bush and his colleaugues are evil human beings. I'm amazed too at how many people were so easily bamboozled into supporting the war just because he made it look like it was what god wanted. Scary stuff.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm amazed too at how many people were so easily bamboozled into supporting the war just because he made it look like it was what god wanted. Scary stuff.

What is terrifying is that the country does not have a unified voting population that can defeat an evangelical conservative swing. And it's not because people passively support the death of democracy at the hands of evangelicals - they just are too lazy to care enough to vote.

That is to say - people are forgetting about Iraq, if they ever even knew about its significance - and are willing to tolerate another evangelical facist regime.

The same candidates are working hard at cultivating the ultra right wing, not because the candidates themselves are indicative of the Republican values but because they are the real deal - Palin, Romney (well, maybe), and Huckabee really are evangelical consevatives.

The Republicans - for God's sake - need to cultivate their own values rather than letting the evangelical leaders of the swing determine it for them.

 

[MSizer]

What is terrifying is that the country does not have a unified voting population that can defeat an evangelical conservative swing. And it's not because people passively support the death of democracy at the hands of evangelicals - they just are too lazy to care enough to vote.

That is to say - people are forgetting about Iraq, if they ever even knew about its significance - and are willing to tolerate another evangelical facist regime.

The same candidates are working hard at cultivating the ultra right wing, not because the candidates themselves are indicative of the Republican values but because they are the real deal - Palin, Romney (well, maybe), and Huckabee really are evangelical consevatives.

The Republicans - for God's sake - need to cultivate their own values rather than letting the evangelical leaders of the swing determine it for them.

I agree with you Angellous. I think it was Pat Robertson who was quoted as saying that even a small group can make a large difference by voting, since so many with opposing views simply won't bother to vote at all. What you said too about "people are forgetting about iraq" is so important too. It's easy for us to forget about something that's simply not in the news anymore, but to the civillians who lost relatives there, it's pretty darn permanent.

 

[Alceste]

Any evidence?

The evidence suggests not that the wars were supposed to go on forever - the morons seem to have actually believed these wars could be quickly and cheaply won - but that there was a definite objective to "fight and decisively win multiple major theater wars"and to set up permanent bases throughout the M.E. (which of course equates to permanent war, since there is no other way to defend permanent bases in an uncooperative sovereign state). All of this was well established as the GOP foreign policy long before 9-11. They were simply waiting for a "catalyzing event" to quickly implement their desired changes.

The presence of American forces in critical regions around the world is the visible expression of the extent of America’s status as a superpower and as the guarantor of liberty, peace and stability. Our role in shaping the peacetime security environment is an essential one, not to be renounced without great cost: it will be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain the role of global guarantor without a substantial overseas presence. Whether established in permanent bases or on rotational deployments, the operations of U.S. and allied forces abroad provide the first line of defense of what may be described as the “American security perimeter.”

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.

... the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

Rebuilding America's Defenses

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I used to believe the US Government, or a faction of it, either destroyed the World Trade Centers themselves or allowed the Hijackers to commit their evil deeds. I have since learned that there is no real evidence to support either. Too many CIA officers would have had to be involved the conspiracy, which makes it vastly improbable.

In regards to allowing 9/11 to happen, if that were the case how many people in organisations structured like the CIA/FBI would have to be directly involved on a need-to-know basis?

At the very least the CIA/FBI were grossly incompetent in regards to 9/11 by failing to respond to multiple warnings from credible sources, dropping lines of active investigation or blocking them altogether.

 

[Darkness]

Eh, actually, I just heard it from a credible source (the Zeitgeist, I believe). I think they had evidence, I just forgot what it was XD. I'll tell you if I find the video again.

I never saw the film, but it looks too much like a David Icke film. It is probably full of half-truths and lies. I need to watch it, now.

In regards to allowing 9/11 to happen, if that were the case how many people in organisations structured like the CIA/FBI would have to be directly involved on a need-to-know basis?

That is the problem with most conspiracy theories. Too many people know and it does not make sense that none of these people would tell the media or the public, especially when 3,000 American lives are murdered.

 

[Alceste]

That is the problem with most conspiracy theories. Too many people know and it does not make sense that none of these people would tell the media or the public, especially when 3,000 American lives are murdered.

I think you kind of missed his point. No CIA or FBI agents would have needed to be directly involved in some kind of "cover-up" for an executive decision not to take steps to avert the 9-11 attacks to be implemented. The entire chain of command has to do what they're told or face disciplinary action. If their boss says "stop investigating those flight schools" (which did in fact occur), they have to stop. They don't get to ask "why".

 

[Tiapan]

Cover up or bungle? As great as the American nation is I believe they had evidence prior to the event but break downs of communications and interdepartmental rivalries, bungled the response. I see evidence of incompetence but none whatsoever of a conspiracy or deliberate attempt to effect the result. I would say there are a lot of similarities between 119 and Pearl Harbor again incompetence.

Cheers

PS. Blexly Park, appears to have known about Pearl Harbor well in advance of the event, but at that time why would you tell the yanks, who were isolationist bystanders.

 

[Trumpton]

it was pretty wrong.

 

[Neo-Logic]

I honestly believe that the Bush administration has made such a horrible impression on our people that they've made the idea of having faith in the government and buying their story far less sexier. I think the idea is also picked up by the impressionable youth or the impressionable in general. These renegade and rebel ideas are very sexy to some people, and they'll go with it regardless of the scenario or the facts, and believe in pseudo science and doubt all credible sources and publications by governmental and non-governmental experts. The idea is, if the sources are affiliated with the government, it's a lie.

Well who else are we supposed to believe? Oh right, a bunch of complete non-experts who come up with a tautological theory backed up by clip after clip of buildings demolitions with arrows and circles, voice overs, and apparently having completely skipped their teacher's lecture on 'causation versus correlation' in their statistics classes.

Some people just have a very hard time in believing that a bunch of really crazy, really fundamental militant Islamic terrorists, with such hatred and pure evil cunning can cause so much financial damage and murder over 3,000 people.

When someone isn't afraid to die, anything is possible. That's a fact.

All these conspiracy theory books are not to be tossed aside lightly, they should be thrown with great force.

 

[Rain Drops]

I reckon it's awesome and amazing that 50% of the people who have voted int he poll believe the official Government story. lol

I mean it's a story, even if it's 90% true there was things omitted for national security reasons and 'spin' put on it by the ruling Government.

But people believe it 100%

And those people who question the few facts made available to the public are deemed wackos.

Let's bomb things, move on, Patriotism, the soldiers! Socialism! Oh Nooss!!.... and yet still we don't know all the facts.

I haven't got a clue what really happened, I just know some buildings went down and at least on one of them I saw a plane crash into it on tv.

 

[Bismillah]

I saw two planes crash into two towers, not one plane ( I bet you were watching FOX trying to save face for G.W) I don't know how they could have spun it anyway to alter the basic facts. Terrorists attacked and killed three thousand plus civilians. I believe the incompetent administration is severely at fault for allowing this to happen. The war in Iraq was a mistake and is one reason why the real war in Afghanistan is going as badly as it is. I support one war, not the other and I don't view myself as mindless.

 

[Neo-Logic]

I reckon it's awesome and amazing that 50% of the people who have voted int he poll believe the official Government story. lol

I mean it's a story, even if it's 90% true there was things omitted for national security reasons and 'spin' put on it by the ruling Government.

But people believe it 100%

And those people who question the few facts made available to the public are deemed wackos.

Let's bomb things, move on, Patriotism, the soldiers! Socialism! Oh Nooss!!.... and yet still we don't know all the facts.

I haven't got a clue what really happened, I just know some buildings went down and at least on one of them I saw a plane crash into it on tv.

Please point out where in the poll, the first choice says that "I believe in the official government story" contains the clause that we are choosing to believe 100% of the government story.

 

[Rain Drops]

Please point out where in the poll, the first choice says that "I believe in the official government story" contains the clause that we are choosing to believe 100% of the government story.

So belief is...what percentage? 51% belief in it? Kinda believe it? On the whole believe it?

No you did not specify it exactly, if you meant it to be broader than what was stated.

What what I've seen of government apologists, they tend to side entirely with the official 'story'.

 

[gnomon]

What exactly does the U.S. government gain from a planned demolition and the destruction of lives involving the Twin Towers?

What exactly does the U.S. government gain from purposely ignoring information of a terrorist attack on the Twin Towers?

Add in the Pentagon as well and the target of Flight 93.

An inability to provide any adequate response to these questions shows nothing but conjecture. The common response is oil. A laughable notion. More specifically, to engage Iraq in a war for some sort of benefit in controlling the oil market. How has that worked out? Not at all.

However, gaining an understanding of the actual foreign policy relationship of the United States in the Middle East as well as other major players shows that such an endeavor is most unlikely. A common refrain I've heard is that the U.S. was buddy buddy with Saddam during the 1980's. That's false information. The U.S., the U.S.S.R. and Israel all played a complex role in the Middle East during the Iraq war against Iran. The conflict between Arab and Persian cultures was a well known and age old conflict for control of the region. Many nations played the two against each other to prevent either from gaining a dominant influence. That's why the U.S. supplied both sides with military aid of some form during the war. Even Israel supplied Iran during the war with arms in our involvement with the U.S.S.R. and Afghanistan.

Also, the United States militarily rolled over Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991. Many factions called for a complete ouster of Saddam during that time and despite naysaying we did possess a treaty calling for action against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait. A nation dependent on oil with favorable treaties with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab oil producing nations could have expanded it's influence by supporting the Kurds and Sunni's by prolonging the engagement and removing Saddam from power for any so called oil interests more than a decade ago. The support was already there.

So again. What exactly is the motivation for the federal government to either conpsire the destruction and death of so many American citizens or to purposefully ignore threats to them?