Ignorance

[jeremypayne]

Can you name a single Jew in the government of any Arab state?

Joe ... I think there was a Mossad agent who infiltrated the Syria government once ... 

Then there's always Joseph ... He became the most powerful man in Egypt ... But I'm not sure the Egyptians were technically Arabs at that point in time ...

Yeah ... Good point. 

Let's also not forget how many Jews were expelled from Arab countries in 1948.

Maybe all the Syrian Jews who were expelled should get a homeland inside Syria.  Don't they have a right of return like that claimed by some Palestinians?

[BernardLanguillier]

You allege that the official story of 9/11 was a fiction invented by the US government and hint that this was a cover-up for an act of treasonous murder perpetrated by our own government.

So to answer your question about "risking planting WMDs" ... Of course such a government as the one yiu allege we HAD would try that ... According to you, they murdered 3,000 US citizens.  If what you allege is true, Obama must be in on it, too.  As are legions of permanent civil servants in the "real" goverment.  It would be the greatest conspiracy of all time, with no leaks.  Amazing story ... Would make a great book.

I was not in the US that day ... I was in London.  But I was there on the 16th or 17th.  I smelled that smell.  I know people that died.  

Tell the truth ... What do you actually know about what happened that day?  It was only 10 years ago and we don't really joke about it ... I doubt we ever will.  

All I am saying is that I don't understand the lack of questioning of the official story. The 9/11 commision was a joke run by people who had personnal interest in making sure that the official conspiration theory would not be looked into too carefully. The story is riddled with in-coherences.

I don't know who did it, but it seems very unlikely that a group of arabs did.

By the way, you are putting once more the conspiration words into my mouth, I did not pronounce them.

On the other hand, now that you mention it, please tell me one thing. What is the difference between starting a war where they knew full well more than 3000 American solidrers would be killed and killing 3000 people directly? Are the lifes of the soliders less valuable?

As a leader who sees Islam as the single greatest threat for your country, are you not going to do anything it takes to protect the life of most Americans from that threat? Will you ever be able to sleep at night if a nuclear bomb is being detonated in NY by these criminals because you did not do the pre-amptive strike you could have done? Wouldn't it make sense to kill 3000 americans for the sake of saving the life of 1.000.000 of them?

Let me give you one more example, if you can give the order to shoot down a plane with 250 peoploe in it to avoid a crash on a city, you can also order to kill 3000 eople in NY to save the rest of them.

Listen once more to the speeches of the GOP Bush Falcons and swear to me they could not have written what I just wrote above.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Joe Behar]

Joe ... I think there was a Mossad agent who infiltrated the Syria government once ... 

Eli Cohen..There was a book written about him..he was caught and exectuted.

Although not close, he was a friend of my father's.

[RSL]

All I am saying is that I don't understand the lack of questioning of the official story. The 9/11 commision was a joke run by people who had personnal interest in making sure that the official conspiration theory would not be looked into too carefully. The story is riddled with in-coherences.

I don't know who did it, but it seems very unlikely that a group of arabs did.

Yes Bernard, and Roosevelt knew the japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, the guy who shot Kennedy was standing on the grassy knoll, and Johnson engineered the Gulf of Tonkin incident. You're right. It seems more likely that Martians carried out 9/11 than that Arabs did it -- even though we know exactly which Arabs did it.

It's hard to understand how anyone actually can believe this kind of crap. This is gullibility on steroids.

[jeremypayne]

Bernard,

A) We have an all-volunteer army ... none of those people on those planes on 9/11 volunteered.

B) Deciding to shoot down a plane that is on a crash course with the white house when you are certain all the individuals on-board are doomed is quite a bit different than deciding to murder 3,000 innocent individuals.

For such a smart guy, Bernard, you are acting real dumb.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... For such a smart guy, Bernard, you are acting real dumb.

Once again, there is no reason for such personal attacks. Either our arguments speak for themselves, or not. Calling each other names is not going to add any weight to one's arguments. After all, we are here not talking about facts, but interpretations and beliefs.

And I am sure both sides of the debate consider the other one dumb, so may I suggest that Bernard calls you dumb too, you guys are then even, and we can go back to arguments?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... and Johnson engineered the Gulf of Tonkin incident...

Russ, care to elaborate? As per my prior general knowledge, the Tonkin incident WAS engineered to enable broader US involvement.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... You allege that the official story of 9/11 was a fiction invented by the US government and hint that this was a cover-up for an act of treasonous murder perpetrated by our own government...

Ridiculous, I know.

Who in his sane mind would assume their own government would ever even consider staging a terrorist attack to further a sinister agenda? Well, there was Hitler burning Reichstag to blame communists, but that was in Nazi Germany, not in a democratic western society.

Oh, wait...

"Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag operation plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of the Operation Northwoods plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

Operation Northwoods included proposals for hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. The plan stated:

"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Several other proposals were included within the Operation Northwoods plan, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed..." (Wikipedia and many other US sources)

[BernardLanguillier]

A) We have an all-volunteer army ... none of those people on those planes on 9/11 volunteered.

B) Deciding to shoot down a plane that is on a crash course with the white house when you are certain all the individuals on-board are doomed is quite a bit different than deciding to murder 3,000 innocent individuals.

For such a smart guy, Bernard, you are acting real dumb.

I appreciate the smart part.

It seems you are running out of logical arguments and conveniently avoided to answer the key questions, so I won't go much farther, but just one last answer for you.

a. Fair point, some politicians probably consider that the death of soldiers as a result of their decision to go to war is something normal since these soldiers signed a piece of paper. These 18 years old kids of course fully understood the implications of their decision to enroll instead of staying unemployed and there is no reason to have second thoughts on their willingness to die for their country.

In essence they consider their deaths as a colateral damage in the grand scheme of things. Do you agree with the proposition that the leader starting a war is directly responsible for the death of soliders, fellow citizens, or are you uncomfortable with this way of looking at things? This conscious decision to kill soldiers is made on the assumption that their death will bring enough value for the country, it is a trade off, a very difficult call but one that is part of the job of president. I believe that you also feel that it must be done, don't you?

b. There is never any way to know for sure if the people on a plane in the hands of hi-jackers are doomed. Shooting down the plane is based on probabilities. The principle here is exactly the same. You have a measured risk and the means to reduce this risk. I suggest you dust off your "a few good man" DVD and replace Jack Nicholson by Dick Cheney/Rumsfeld. You might see what I mean.

Let me ask you once more what you would do. You know (god told you) that a country has the means and intend to hurt you. You know you have the power to anihilate that risk. All you need is a good excuse to strike first. As a responsible leader with the ability to be decisive, would you consider you are doing your job if you did not make up the required excuses? OR is your "goodness" going to prevent you from doing so? Is that the same goodness that will also prevent you from ordering soldiers to torture war prisoners?

Knowing what we know about Cheney and Rumsfled, reading what they have written, there is little doubt that these guys meant business. The only possible thing that could have prevented them from acting is ethics, but we have enough evidence to question their ethics already, don't we?

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes Bernard, and Roosevelt knew the japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, the guy who shot Kennedy was standing on the grassy knoll, and Johnson engineered the Gulf of Tonkin incident. You're right. It seems more likely that Martians carried out 9/11 than that Arabs did it -- even though we know exactly which Arabs did it.

It's hard to understand how anyone actually can believe this kind of crap. This is gullibility on steroids.

I find it pretty telling that the only less likely explanation you could find is Martians.

By the way, how do we know that the arabs did it? Is that thanks to the passports that were found untouched at the base of a 400m tall building that just collapse in flames?

It's hard to understand how anyone actually can believe this kind of crap.

Cheers,
Bernard

[RSL]

Russ, care to elaborate? As per my prior general knowledge, the Tonkin incident WAS engineered to enable broader US involvement.

Slobodan, There were two Gulf of Tonkin incidents. The first one certainly wasn't engineered, though it might have been provoked by the fact that the ships were supporting SVN military ops at the time. The second incident might have been engineered, but the report by the captain of the second ship, the one that got the sonar signals that started the firing, made it pretty clear that it was a simple overreaction by people on hair-trigger alert. Unfortunately there's been so much BS published about the incidents that it's hard to know exactly what did happen in the second case. The real engineer, though, was LBJ who used fuzzy reports of the incident to BS the Congress into giving him blanket authority to proceed with the fiasco that followed.

[Chairman Bill]

... You know (god told you) that a country has the means and intend to hurt you. You know you have the power to anihilate that risk. All you need is a good excuse to strike first ...

Wow! Turn your head for a few minutes ... Bernard, Bush was/is what we here in the UK might call a prat. Actually, we might call him a few things worse than that, but this is maybe not the place for expanding on that. Bush was surrounded by some unpleasant characters, but the US intelligence community are not wholly made up of those bad people. Such a conspiracy would be pretty difficult to conceal, but let's assume some tight-knit cabal, acting beyond any oversight; do you really think they'd have conspired to pin it on a bunch of Saudi Arabian Wahabbi extremists (excuse the tautology) when they actually wanted to implicate Saddam Hussein? Surely, not even Bush is that stupid. OK, maybe he is, but it wouldn't have just been Bush, would it?

[RSL]

I find it pretty telling that the only less likely explanation you could find is Martians.

Well, maybe it was Venusians then.

[BernardLanguillier]

Wow! Turn your head for a few minutes ... Bernard, Bush was/is what we here in the UK might call a prat. Actually, we might call him a few things worse than that, but this is maybe not the place for expanding on that. Bush was surrounded by some unpleasant characters, but the US intelligence community are not wholly made up of those bad people. Such a conspiracy would be pretty difficult to conceal, but let's assume some tight-knit cabal, acting beyond any oversight; do you really think they'd have conspired to pin it on a bunch of Saudi Arabian Wahabbi extremists (excuse the tautology) when they actually wanted to implicate Saddam Hussein? Surely, not even Bush is that stupid. OK, maybe he is, but it wouldn't have just been Bush, would it?

Com'on, there is an unlimited amount of possibilities bewteen the official 9/11 explanation and the most extreme version of the conspiration theories where no arabs were ever involved. My main claim is that the official story is way too unlikely to have happened the way it was described and that it would make sense for a truly independant commision to look into this some more.

Another claim I am confidently making is that the usage of WMD to start the Irak war was not a mistake but a purposeful lie. The very existence of this lie makes the official 9/11 story all the more suspicious, but I don't remember having written in this thread that Bush plotted 9/11 to justify the attacks on Irak.

Now, there is little doubt that 9/11 helped progress the idea that the arab/muslim world was attacking the US. It did for sure make it easier for many US citizens to accept the idea of starting a war agains Irak. Irak being another arab country supposed to be in a position to hurt the West even more.

On the small gap between Saoudi Arabia and Irak... as of last year something like 50% of Americans were still convinced that Irak's role in the 9/11 attacks was a proven fact. Seen from a distance, they are all arabs, aren't they?

What is the connection between the 2 evetnts? That is obviously unclear, but assuming a conspiracy for the sake of the argument, it doesn't seem that a fully integrated Irak only conspiration was required or needed to make the thing work.

Cheers,
Bernard

[jeremypayne]

It is dumb to make the comparisons Bernard made between plainly different circumstances.

I don't think he's dumb, as I said ... And since he isn't dumb, but he is saying dumb things leads me to believe he is being facetious ... So i noted the apparent contradiction.

That was not a personal attack.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Shooting down may not have been an option. You need weapons for that. A pair of unarmed F16-s on excercise flight have been ordered to intercept and ram into the plane that crashed into the pentagon building but arrived a couple of minutes to late. This is to my best knowledge, but there are a lot of stories going around, not all necesserely true.

Regarding 8/11 it's very well possible that it was an incident engineered to drag the US into military conflict with the Moslem world, but such engineering would have been done by Al Qaida and not the US government.

I don't really understand why the US choose to occupy Iraq as a response to 9/11. I guess the factors have been:

- A strong feeling in parts of the American society that the US had unfinished business with Iraq after the Gulf War
- A genuine concern about WMDs and lack of cooperation with the international community by Iraq
- An ongoing low intensity military conflict with very frequent US airstrikes in the "no fly zones". This conflict was upheld by both the Bush administrations but also by the Clinton administration.
- Iraq beeing a very brutal dictatorship

Another factor was probably that the US choose to use the threat of military intervention to force Iraq to oblige with UN resolutions. Unfortunately military threats are a blunt weapon, with time working for the other side. To create a credible military option  a country needs to build a coalition of nations supporting the intervention, ship lots of forces and equipment to the area and maintain that force for a long time. The other side can simply sit idle and wait until the coalition breaks down or the forces cannot be maintained.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

[Chairman Bill]

I think that in respect of the invasion of Iraq, 911 is a red herring. Bush saw an opportunity for a long-intentioned 'regime change', untramelled by UN resolutions, which had after all kept the coalition from deposng Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War. Iraq was unfinished business, and they had lots of oil. So yes, WMD was a made up issue IMO, and Bush et al were set on war whatever, and 911 was the excuse. Also, it was never going to hurt his poll standing, assuming all went well, which the likes of Rumsfeld & Cheney arrogantly assumed. Their actions were immoral, and dragged the US and others into the biggest mistake in western foreign policy, ever.

[Rob C]

The Art of Photography is, indeed, an ever expanding one.

So far in this discussion on photo art, I have understood that some Arabs or un-American Americans who, presumably (dangerous, Rob, dangerous and even dodgy!) broke the western ethic and code and embraced selfless suicide for a greater cause, took pilot driving lessons for a couple of weeks, unsuspiciously avoided the landing part of said course, then drove their magic carpets into the biggest targets in the land. Perhaps these quasi pilots were all Jewish, too, extending the suicide motif to their fellows within the buildings, all the while intent on righting the wrongs of the settlements being built over in the Mediterranean.

So far, we are still working in the letter A list of possibilities - many more letters to explore!

And you expect me to get to grips with digital? I know it's early days, yet, but some advice I'm finding here.

Rob C

[Rob C]

I think that in respect of the invasion of Iraq, 911 is a red herring.

No, Bill, it's a Porsche.

Rob C

[stamper]

I find it pretty telling that the only less likely explanation you could find is Martians.

By the way, how do we know that the arabs did it? Is that thanks to the passports that were found untouched at the base of a 400m tall building that just collapse in flames?

It's hard to understand how anyone actually can believe this kind of crap.

Cheers,
Bernard

A lot of people find it hard to believe that Arabs managed to train themselves to such a high level that they managed to outwit the American air defences who have the best funded and trained operators in the world. Is this not an indictment of their defences? I wonder why the Arabs had passports on them? Was this to prove that they wanted the world to know they did it? Normally when people do this kind of thing they do their best to make sure they can't be identified.  I am sitting on the fence in respect to who did it. There is however a lot of evidence that the conspiracy theorists can choose from. One thing for sure you won't get an impartial enquiry from the US. What would happen if the government was found to be implicated?