Breaking News! 9/11 Mastermind confesses

[Gravy]

It is somehow political but it is 9/11 related, becase I'm trying to show you why LIHOP is credible, and supported by evidence.

(bolding mine)


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
–Inigo Montoya

 

[stateofgrace]

I
I certainly agree with you that almost all of the neocons foreign policy actions are a terrible failure.

So "why LIHOP when you see how bad it's got since 9/11?". Actually, the neocons did not think ex ante that their policies would end in failure. When it became clear, they still believed that time would prove their decisions right. And remember some objectives have been achieved:
- a lot of money for a small group of companies,
- effective control of the Malacca strait, putting pressure on east asian countries oil supply, including China and Japan,
- effective disunity among the EU countries through the Iraki conflict and the anti-missile batteries they want to install in easter europe,
- strategic rounding up of the iranian regime through military presence in AF (east), IQ (West), Saudi Arabia (South): the trap is fully implemented, they are now just looking for a pretext. No wonder why the Iranian regime wants the bomb so hard!! (if you thought their only idea is to destroy Israel)

Remember also that in internal affairs, they have achieved some goals: better control of the american public through "the need for security", effective tax cuts for rich people, etc..

So the neocons have managed to use 9/11 effectively. If you combine the partial succeses and the fact they believed invading IQ would prove a success, you understanf why Rumsfelf called 9/11 "a blessing".

Conservative neocon foreign policy is nothing of the sort. The neocons that came about in the cold war were directly opposed to supporting tyrants and oppressive regimes. Their ideas and ideals came about as a result of the cold war.
It was policy to fight the spread of communism by any means possible; basically the ends justify the means. These means ment supporting tyrants and oppressive regimes if it could stop the spread of communism. The neocons actually was opposed to this policy, they actually backed not supporting tyrants and oppressive regime. They backed then as they do now change through supporting opposition to such regimes. They were actually labelled as democratic revolutionaries.

Did their policies work? Well that is a matter for the history books and a matter for individual take on events.

Since the history lesson is now out off the way how does it relate to oppressing their own people? It does not Busherie.

When it was seen that the invasion of Iraq was going wrong and it was clear that this country had no WMD, the policy quickly changed back in line with neocon think tank policy. Regime change, the spread of democracy.

911 was a dreadful incident and as you said Rumford said it was a blessing, to the neocons that adopt and adhere to their base root polices it was, but in this sense only. It gave them the political muscle to spread democracy, it gave them the political muscle to ride rough shot over the UN and invade Iraq.

So how does this fit in with allowing 911 to happen? It simply does not; there is absolutely no political mileage for any democratic Revolutionary whose goal is to spread democracy in attacking a democracy and then start oppressing the very democracy it has just attacked. It simply does not make sense at all that a group of individuals who base their very ideals on polices that were adopted from the struggle with the Soviets would do this.

So in a broad and very loose sense yes they have managed the aftermath of 911 successfully , they have managed to carry on the spread of democracy but this is simply political opportunism rather than fore planning.

I’m sorry Busherie but what you say simply does not follow neocon political thinking at all, it is completely crazy to think that attacking oneself would in anyway promote and spread democracy.

I don’t really support this way of thinking but this is my understanding of neocon policy. I am not too keen on one country enforcing its laws upon another country but this comes all they way from the cold war when the US had to support tyrants and dictators to stop the spread of communism. If anything the neocons are at the other end of the spectrum whereby stopping communism was not the aim but actually spreading democracy is the true aim.

On this I will leave this thread because it is now far too political. I’m sorry Busherie but you have got a long way to go before you convince me that LIHOP is in anyway a viable option. And more so that 911 was in anyway beneficial to the US or anybody for that matter.

 

[twinstead]

I consider LIHOP to be a cop out. Nobody comes to this debate thinking LIHOP first. It simply means that one came to the table thinking it was an inside job and perpetrated by the US government, but after being shown the harsh light of reason the only way to save face is to close ones eyes and claim "LIHOP".

 

[Gravy]

I consider LIHOP to be a cop out. Nobody comes to this debate thinking LIHOP first. It simply means that one came to the table thinking it was an inside job and perpetrated by the US government, but after being shown the harsh light of reason the only way to save face is to close ones eyes and claim "LIHOP".

Paging Mr. Avery. Mr. Avery to the white courtesy phone, please.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Gumboot, what do you think about the fact the US had already used a "testimony" of a Al Qaida jailed member for propaganda purposes:

"Until last week, the most successful from-jail operation was run by captured senior al-Qaeda leader Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who described non-existent WMD (weapons of mass destruction) cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a claim Washington used to support its case for war with Iraq. Libi later recanted his claims, and he may still be smiling at the effects of his statement."

Also:

September 2002 The CIA completes a highly classified report on “Iraqi Ties to Terrorism,” summarizing claims that Iraq has provided “training in poisons and gases” to members of al-Qaeda. The report warns that evidence for the claim comes from “sources of varying reliability” and has not yet been substanitated. The main source behind this allegation, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who once operated bin Laden’s Khalden training camp in Afghanistan and who is being held in custody by the CIA, will later recant the claim (see February 14, 2004). [New York Times, 7/31/2004; Newsweek, 7/5/2005]

_________________

Yeah, of course. When Libi served the purpose of war, he was telling the truth. Now that the WMD thing was blown up, the new official theory was that he had lied on purpose to engage in a war that was turning into a disaster.

Here's my theory on it.

OBL has spent much of his life pursing the goal of reforming that Arabian Ottoman Empire that was destroyed by the west at the conclusion of WWI. He blames the west for the way the Arab world has been treated, especially in regards to oil, and more so with the "confiscation of land" that occurred in 1947 with the establishment of Israel.

In the late 1980's he learned how to defeat a super power and force it to retreat. He also saw the US defeated in Vietnam and learned from that. With the back down and retreat of the Soviets, he saw his chance to start to reform the Ottoman Empire in his own image. Thus he started to gather support for this about the Arab world.

Then in 1991 Iraq attacked Kuwait and he saw his opportunity. Here he could enlist the help of the Arab world and free Kuwait, standing among them as a leader of great power and under his leadership he could unit the countries back into one grand Muslim state. This dream died when Saudi Arabia snubbed him in his offer to help, and instead turned to the US and Britain, a total humiliation for the man who would unite and lead the Arab World.

So he started plotting. Through a series of attacks, each one designed to be bigger and more costly than the last, he hoped to draw the US into a war in the Middle East, and yet, no matter what he tried they would fail to respond. Even attacks on their embassies and warships failed to bring about the desired result. So they went big, 9/11.

Once the seeds of war were planted with the 9/11 attacks, and knowing that Bushy the Jr was mad bent on getting Saddam, OBL allowed a number of operative to be captured knowing that they would be "questioned." Un duress, to make it believable, They were spin a tale about Iraq and Al Qaeda working together, and Iraq having WMD and supplying them to Al Qaeda.

This would have several effects. Firstly it would make the US intelligence look silly went it was found that they believed false information. Secondly it would draw the US into a war with Iraq, the largest secular country in the Middle East and a major stumbling block to OBL's plans of a united Muslim Empire.

Here he was able to kill two birds with one stone. By removing Saddam he removed the secular Iraqi Government and by drawing the US into a war he had them concentrating on that rather then him, all while doing his work for him. With his studies of Vietnam and being part of the history in Afghanistan he also knew that by using sappers and targeting the supplies lines, he could weaken the US forces once they had destroyed Saddam's army. Inflicting enough causalities would create a call to withdraw, just as happened in the 60-70's over Vietnam.

With the US pulling out of Iraq there would be chaos, and in the middle of it he would be able to step forward and propose a solution, drawing the warring factions together and taking over Iraq. Now with not only the second largest supply of oil in the world, but with the arms of an entire country behind him, he would be able to once more move on his goals of drawing in the rest of the Arab world and re-forge the Ottoman Empire.

Once more the Middle East would be united from Turkey through to Afghanistan and down to Egypt. Israel would be destroyed in the merging as they were outnumbers and crushed and the entire area would under his glorious control.

And it would seem, that currently his plan is working pretty well.

 

[gumboot]

Once more the Middle East would be united from Turkey through to Afghanistan and down to Egypt. Israel would be destroyed in the merging as they were outnumbers and crushed and the entire area would under his glorious control.

Just a nitpick, most Radical Islamic Extremists have extended to desired Caliphate to be "from Spain to Indonesia".

I guess we're going to have some unpleasant neighbours soon, PhantomWolf.

-Gumboot

 

[busherie]

Bringing the debate back to 9/11

We have had a chance to discuss the political back ground of 9/11. I tried to show you that despite all the failures related to post 9/11 related actions, the neocons had a serious motive to close their eyes to the mounting threat of the summer of 2001.

Now that this is done, and despite the fact that we don't agree, I want to take the discussion back to 9/11, and more precisely to the "evidence" (I know we don't agree on that term) indicating that the administration deliberately ignored vital information and warnings.

Take for instance the little discussed revelation by Bob Woodward that Rice attended a meeting where she was told of the incoming threat. We don't know all the details about this meeting, but we certainly have some important material:

If we are to believe Mr Woodward story, the meeting took place on july 10th, at a time where multiple warnings were being sent (see the 300+ entries at the cooperative research).

Were present Mr Tenet and Mrs Rice:

The book says that Mr. Tenet hurriedly organized the meeting — calling ahead from his car as it traveled to the White House — because he wanted to “shake Rice” into persuading the president to respond to dire intelligence warnings that summer about a terrorist strike. Mr. Woodward writes that Mr. Tenet left the meeting frustrated because “they were not getting through to Rice.”

Obviously, mrs Rice never mentionned this meeting and said it never happened. Now, you might say that Tenet was trying to show off, that he is pissed off he was fired over the Iraqi issue.

“None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath, nor do we have any paper on this,” said Timothy J. Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former House member from Indiana. “I’m deeply disturbed by this. I’m furious.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/w...f20ad8f76&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Well obvisously he can rightly be furious.

Another interesting account about this meeting was formulated by Peter Rundlet, a former adviser to the 9/11 commission.

He also quotes Woodward's books:

They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and “sounded the loudest warning” to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden. Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, “They felt the brushoff."

I'll leave Mr. Rundlet conclude himself:

Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. If one could suspend disbelief to accept that all three officials forgot about the meeting when they were interviewed, then one possibility is that the memory of one of them was later jogged by notes or documents that describe the meeting. If such documents exist, the 9/11 Commission should have seen them.

According to Woodward’s book, Cofer Black exonerates them all this way: “Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork about the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.”
The notion that both the 9/11 Commission and the Congressional Joint Inquiry that investigated the intelligence prior to 9/11 did not want to know about such essential information is simply absurd. At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/30/911-meeting/


Of course, there are two solutions:

1. Rice just screwed up, she was tired, she just wasn't conscious of the threat. The famous PDB was given only 3 weeks later. But that of course wasn't the only information they had at the time. But let's imagine they screwed up.

2. Rice, like Cheney and a few others, were at that time getting the partial picture: not that planes would be used, not the targets themselves, but that a large attack by AlQaida was incoming. This would be the Pearl Harbour they needed. Rice refused to hear about this.


So one has to ask itself honestly: didn't some US officials let it happen on purpose.

Doesn't just seem plausible to me: it seems very likely.

Busherie

​

 

[busherie]

Anyone interested in answering? Gumboot, Gravy?

This surely is more important than the blueprints "smoking gun".

B.

 

[busherie]

I insist: anybody has any comments to make about the meeting where Rice was told AQ was on the verge of a major attack.

B

 

[stateofgrace]

We have had a chance to discuss the political back ground of 9/11. I tried to show you that despite all the failures related to post 9/11 related actions, the neocons had a serious motive to close their eyes to the mounting threat of the summer of 2001.

No they did not, you have failed repeatedly to show this and you have failed to even acknowledge what is the driving political ideology being neocon thinking.

There is no, zero motive for neocons who wish to spread democracy to attack the biggest democracy on the planet.

You have failed completely to show that the end game was engineered to start a disasterous war inside Iraq and you have failed completely to show that 911 was allowed to happen to engineer this war.

You have simply strung together a collection of facts with in the massive picture that led up to 911 and tried to stick them all together to paint a sinister plot involving the inner workings of the USG.

This is why I refuse to accept your spin on world events Busherie because you simply see the word Neocon and connect it with nasty horrible individuals without any moral fibre who would gladly allow the deaths of 3000 if their own to promote their own political agenda. An agenda that has failed incidentally.

Now that this is done, and despite the fact that we don't agree, I want to take the discussion back to 9/11, and more precisely to the "evidence" (I know we don't agree on that term) indicating that the administration deliberately ignored vital information and warnings.

Take for instance the little discussed revelation by Bob Woodward that Rice attended a meeting where she was told of the incoming threat. We don't know all the details about this meeting, but we certainly have some important material:

If we are to believe Mr Woodward story, the meeting took place on july 10th, at a time where multiple warnings were being sent (see the 300+ entries at the cooperative research).

Were present Mr Tenet and Mrs Rice:

The book says that Mr. Tenet hurriedly organized the meeting — calling ahead from his car as it traveled to the White House — because he wanted to “shake Rice” into persuading the president to respond to dire intelligence warnings that summer about a terrorist strike. Mr. Woodward writes that Mr. Tenet left the meeting frustrated because “they were not getting through to Rice.”

Obviously, mrs Rice never mentionned this meeting and said it never happened. Now, you might say that Tenet was trying to show off, that he is pissed off he was fired over the Iraqi issue.

“None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath, nor do we have any paper on this,” said Timothy J. Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former House member from Indiana. “I’m deeply disturbed by this. I’m furious.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/w...f20ad8f76&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Well obvisously he can rightly be furious.

Another interesting account about this meeting was formulated by Peter Rundlet, a former adviser to the 9/11 commission.

He also quotes Woodward's books:

They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and “sounded the loudest warning” to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden. Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, “They felt the brushoff."

I'll leave Mr. Rundlet conclude himself:

Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. If one could suspend disbelief to accept that all three officials forgot about the meeting when they were interviewed, then one possibility is that the memory of one of them was later jogged by notes or documents that describe the meeting. If such documents exist, the 9/11 Commission should have seen them.

According to Woodward’s book, Cofer Black exonerates them all this way: “Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork about the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.”
The notion that both the 9/11 Commission and the Congressional Joint Inquiry that investigated the intelligence prior to 9/11 did not want to know about such essential information is simply absurd. At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/30/911-meeting/


Of course, there are two solutions:

1. Rice just screwed up, she was tired, she just wasn't conscious of the threat. The famous PDB was given only 3 weeks later. But that of course wasn't the only information they had at the time. But let's imagine they screwed up.

2. Rice, like Cheney and a few others, were at that time getting the partial picture: not that planes would be used, not the targets themselves, but that a large attack by AlQaida was incoming. This would be the Pearl Harbour they needed. Rice refused to hear about this.


So one has to ask itself honestly: didn't some US officials let it happen on purpose.

Doesn't just seem plausible to me: it seems very likely.

Busherie

So what Busherie? , they knew it was coming, every man and his dog knew it was coming. Bush even had a memo dropped on his desk on the 6th of August telling him it was coming.

The system was blinking red Busherie, time ran out, you know in the real world people really do make mistakes and people really do go " Oh ****, how the hell did we miss that? “

They screwed up.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621819966.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35744-2002May17?language=printer

God I cannot beleive I am having to defend neocon political beliefs. Busherie, offer up something other than "the neocons did it, it is all their fault,they knew , they let it happen" Ok ?

 

[busherie]

No they did not, you have failed repeatedly to show this and you have failed to even acknowledge what is the driving political ideology being neocon thinking.

There is no, zero motive for neocons who wish to spread democracy to attack the biggest democracy on the planet.

You have failed completely to show that the end game was engineered to start a disasterous war inside Iraq and you have failed completely to show that 911 was allowed to happen to engineer this war.

You have simply strung together a collection of facts with in the massive picture that led up to 911 and tried to stick them all together to paint a sinister plot involving the inner workings of the USG.

This is why I refuse to accept your spin on world events Busherie because you simply see the word Neocon and connect it with nasty horrible individuals without any moral fibre who would gladly allow the deaths of 3000 if their own to promote their own political agenda. An agenda that has failed incidentally.

So what Busherie? , they knew it was coming, every man and his dog knew it was coming. Bush even had a memo dropped on his desk on the 6th of August telling him it was coming.

The system was blinking red Busherie, time ran out, you know in the real world people really do make mistakes and people really do go " Oh ****, how the hell did we miss that? “

They screwed up.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621819966.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35744-2002May17?language=printer

God I cannot beleive I am having to defend neocon political beliefs. Busherie, offer up something other than "the neocons did it, it is all their fault,they knew , they let it happen" Ok ?

But you always choose the sunny side of things. You choose to believe the "incompetence" theory.

Why refuse to see what they did was at best criminal negligence! They refused to act so they could go on with their agenda.

If you could ackowledge that, as long as we can't subpoena these people, it is incompetence 50% / LIHOP 50%, then i'd think you're being intellectually honest.

B

 

[stateofgrace]

But you always choose the sunny side of things. You choose to believe the "incompetence" theory.

Why refuse to see what they did was at best criminal negligence! They refused to act so they could go on with their agenda.

If you could ackowledge that, as long as we can't subpoena these people, it is incompetence 50% / LIHOP 50%, then i'd think you're being intellectually honest.

B

I resent your accusation that I am intellectually dishonest and ask you to retract it. I have been completely honest with you in all of my answers and I have replied in a civil and fair manner. I have looked at this issue in a totally subjective way and have balanced all the arguments that have been put forward regarding the forewarnings that was issued to the US before 911.

You have laboured the issue that these forewarning were not missed but were purposefully missed to promote and drive neocon political polices. Polices which it is abundantly clear you don't even understand.

To date you have nothing other that what everybody knows, all the warnings have been looked at, and they have all even been mentioned in the 911 commissions report. If you think for one moment that this report is anyway protecting anybody and making light of the way the warnings were missed you have not read the report.

Busherie, you are accusing individuals of the most hideous crime imaginable. You do so on your own twisting of the information that is publicly available. If the evidence was so clear then it simply would not have been made public.

I see nothing sunny about neither 911 nor the consequences of it. Nor do I see anything sunny about somebody trying his damdest to accuse innocent people of mass murder.

 

[busherie]

I resent your accusation that I am intellectually dishonest and ask you to retract it. I have been completely honest with you in all of my answers and I have replied in a civil and fair manner. I have looked at this issue in a totally subjective way and have balanced all the arguments that have been put forward regarding the forewarnings that was issued to the US before 911.

You have laboured the issue that these forewarning were not missed but were purposefully missed to promote and drive neocon political polices. Polices which it is abundantly clear you don't even understand.

To date you have nothing other that what everybody knows, all the warnings have been looked at, and they have all even been mentioned in the 911 commissions report. If you think for one moment that this report is anyway protecting anybody and making light of the way the warnings were missed you have not read the report.

Busherie, you are accusing individuals of the most hideous crime imaginable. You do so on your own twisting of the information that is publicly available. If the evidence was so clear then it simply would not have been made public.

I see nothing sunny about neither 911 nor the consequences of it. Nor do I see anything sunny about somebody trying his damdest to accuse innocent people of mass murder.

I agree the intellectual honesty thing was not appropriate. I take it back.

"all the warnings have been looked at, and they have all even been mentioned in the 911 commissions report". No. For instance, this july 11th meeting was not mentionned in the report. Rice, under oath, did not mention it and then denied it ever took place. Even the Commission was pissed off when they learnt about it.

You see LIHOP as "the most hideous crime imaginable". I assure there has been much worse crimes in history. Even starting a war on false pretexts that has led to undreds of thousands of death is as bad or worse than LIHOP 9/11.

It's much simpler than that. When the leaders started to see that an attack was very likely, they thought that after all, they did not comit the crime themselves. the terrorists did it. and if it enables them to take decisive actions they'd long called for for the sake of America, so so be it.

I believe you refuse by essence that a "democratic government" cannot contemplate letting some of its citizens die for what they think is the long term interest of the country.

And althouh you're intellectualy honest you just don't accept they did just that. But having your citizens dying is a choice governements are faced with everyday:

- when you choose not to provide heathcare for the poorest: they die
- when you choose not to implement environmental policies: they die
- when you declare the air safe on 9/11 because you want the city to get back to work ASAP: they die.

So my point is, if your point is 1. not enough evidence (like transcript, testimony) prove LIHOP 2. the government could not be responsible for such a terrible crime, then i suggest you reconsider your position.

Because even if (1) is still true (as long as a serious investigation is not set up) 2. is just simply and purely wrong.

B

 

[stateofgrace]

I agree the intellectual honesty thing was not appropriate. I take it back.

"all the warnings have been looked at, and they have all even been mentioned in the 911 commissions report". No. For instance, this july 11th meeting was not mentionned in the report. Rice, under oath, did not mention it and then denied it ever took place. Even the Commission was pissed off when they learnt about it.

You see LIHOP as "the most hideous crime imaginable". I assure there has been much worse crimes in history. Even starting a war on false pretexts that has led to undreds of thousands of death is as bad or worse than LIHOP 9/11.

It's much simpler than that. When the leaders started to see that an attack was very likely, they thought that after all, they did not comit the crime themselves. the terrorists did it. and if it enables them to take decisive actions they'd long called for for the sake of America, so so be it.

I believe you refuse by essence that a "democratic government" cannot contemplate letting some of its citizens die for what they think is the long term interest of the country.

And althouh you're intellectualy honest you just don't accept they did just that. But having your citizens dying is a choice governements are faced with everyday:

- when you choose not to provide heathcare for the poorest: they die
- when you choose not to implement environmental policies: they die
- when you declare the air safe on 9/11 because you want the city to get back to work ASAP: they die.

So my point is, if your point is 1. not enough evidence (like transcript, testimony) prove LIHOP 2. the government could not be responsible for such a terrible crime, then i suggest you reconsider your position.

Because even if (1) is still true (as long as a serious investigation is not set up) 2. is just simply and purely wrong.

B

The analogies you offer are terrible, destroying the environment and the health service is not in the long term interest of any country. This is an act of silly and ill thought out polices. The polices behind this are not malicious. As for declaring the air was safe to work unless you can offer proof that this was a deliberately malicious act intended to injure or kill again it is a terrible analogy.

I see you are using the Iraq war analogy also. This too is a terrible analogy. You may as well just say “Look Bush and co started a war in Iraq to kill thousands of innocent people and to destroy the countries infrastructure. This was all planned out before hand and was done with intent". This then follows that anybody capable of such a wicked ,dreadful act would also be capable of murdering 3000 of there own citizens to achieve such a thing.

The war inside an Iraq, IMO is a terrible thing it has killed countess thousand of people and cost an absolute fortune but and here is the but, this was not the plan. This was never indented. I doubt you will find much support from anybody, including those who disagree with this war, that it was deliberately started to achieve these precise things. So this again goes back to the point of intent. And this is where the LIHOP fails for this to be true there has to be intent. There is no way round it.

For anybody to allow 911 to have happened on purpose then these has to be an intention, a willingness to see destruction and death brought on your own country.

Despite all you may think of the war in Iraq, and I actually don't support it, it was never the intent on invading this country to kill thousands and bring it to the brink of civil war. Although this has happened, it has happened because there never was any correctly thought out exit strategy or what would happen once the fighting had stopped, which only lasted a very short time. And here in lies the massive difference between LIHOP and the Iraq war. The consequences of the invasion of Iraq could never have in visualised and were not intended. The consequences of LIHOP could be visualised and would have been indended.

No Busherie there is no worse crime than allowing terrorists to board four planes and slaughter thousands of your own citizens because if this really happened then it happened not because somebody got it all wrong but because somebody indented it to happen. Somebody, somewhere seriously sat down and thought it all out, knowing that by doing nothing thousands of their own citizens would die, intentionally.

It is not just simply and purely wrong, it is called genocide, and this is what LIHOP is.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I agree. One should always separate the governement and the people. And in particular with he neocons.

If you agree, then why did you claim that "the US" (suggesting the country as a whole) believes "they hate our freedoms"?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Focusing so hard on radical islam, which is a threat, but truly a minor one compared to Communism in the Past and global warming today, is just a way of hiding realities.

I don't recall communism killing more than 3000 American civilians on American soil. So, maybe Communism was a greater global threat, but radical islam represents a more serious domestic threat for the US.

 

[busherie]

I don't recall communism killing more than 3000 American civilians on American soil. So, maybe Communism was a greater global threat, but radical islam represents a more serious domestic threat for the US.

American civilians on US soil? Maybe no: but remember the threat was actually to nuke the whole country, killing millions: that was clearly a significant threat. And overall, wars abroad against communism cost 60000 (Viet) + 40000 (Korea) = 100 000

How many victims did Radical Islam did in the last say... 10 years?

I'd say no more than 10 000 thousands, if you consider that the Iraqi civil war is not a direct result of radical islamism terrorism.

If you decide to count the iraqis then you might wanna add the civilians killed during the war against communism: then you wour easily reach millions.

Overall, although radical islamism is a threat, it is clearly a minor one, provided we deal with it in an intelligent way (ie exactly the opposit of what's been done in the last 10 years).

We are a hundred times stronger than they are. Let's not overestimate this thing. Without the war in IQ and if the Is-Pa conflict had been settled, just try to imagine how the world would be today...

If you agree, then why did you claim that "the US" (suggesting the country as a whole) believes "they hate our freedoms"?

I didn't take the time to be more precise: obviously not everybody thinks that. There are various opinions.

The analogies you offer are terrible, destroying the environment and the health service is not in the long term interest of any country. This is an act of silly and ill thought out polices. The polices behind this are not malicious. As for declaring the air was safe to work unless you can offer proof that this was a deliberately malicious act intended to injure or kill again it is a terrible analogy.

I see you are using the Iraq war analogy also. This too is a terrible analogy. You may as well just say “Look Bush and co started a war in Iraq to kill thousands of innocent people and to destroy the countries infrastructure. This was all planned out before hand and was done with intent". This then follows that anybody capable of such a wicked ,dreadful act would also be capable of murdering 3000 of there own citizens to achieve such a thing.

The war inside an Iraq, IMO is a terrible thing it has killed countess thousand of people and cost an absolute fortune but and here is the but, this was not the plan. This was never indented. I doubt you will find much support from anybody, including those who disagree with this war, that it was deliberately started to achieve these precise things. So this again goes back to the point of intent. And this is where the LIHOP fails for this to be true there has to be intent. There is no way round it.

For anybody to allow 911 to have happened on purpose then these has to be an intention, a willingness to see destruction and death brought on your own country.

Despite all you may think of the war in Iraq, and I actually don't support it, it was never the intent on invading this country to kill thousands and bring it to the brink of civil war. Although this has happened, it has happened because there never was any correctly thought out exit strategy or what would happen once the fighting had stopped, which only lasted a very short time. And here in lies the massive difference between LIHOP and the Iraq war. The consequences of the invasion of Iraq could never have in visualised and were not intended. The consequences of LIHOP could be visualised and would have been indended.

No Busherie there is no worse crime than allowing terrorists to board four planes and slaughter thousands of your own citizens because if this really happened then it happened not because somebody got it all wrong but because somebody indented it to happen. Somebody, somewhere seriously sat down and thought it all out, knowing that by doing nothing thousands of their own citizens would die, intentionally.

It is not just simply and purely wrong, it is called genocide, and this is what LIHOP is.

1. Stateoggrace, I think that you have been misled by Bush and Rusmfeld, about the "Zero K" wars: Wars kill people, that's it. There are "collateral damage", there are solders dying, people die. When you decide to start a war, you know people are gonna die. That's why international law forbid starting war, unless they are meant to counter a direct threat to your country. That was not the case, the neocons knew it, and still they started the war. Now people die.

When they started it, they already knew that people, including their soldiers, were going to die. So why can't you conceive that some of them let civilians die for what they thought was the greater interest of the country?

2. Another precision: genocide is something very particular, and though it's hard to define, it's cannot be used except in certain contexts. Wiki definition:

"Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

3. EPA and the decision to declare the air safe. It's obvious they decided to lie about the risks in order to get the city (and Wall Street in particualr) back to work:

September 16, 2001

The EPA and OSHA release a joint statement asserting that the air in downtown New York City is safe to breathe. “[N]ew samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern,” the agencies claim. [Environmental Protection Agency, 9/16/2001] But it is later learned that the press release had been heavily edited under pressure from the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Critical passages in the original draft were either deleted or modified to downplay public health risks posed by contaminants that were released into the air during the collapse of the World Trade Center. [Environmental Protection Agency, 8/21/2003 ; Newsday, 8/26/2003]


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=environmental_protection_agency



So overall, you need to ask yourself: can my government have decided to some of us should die, that our country should be damaged, to wake America up, after all these years of Clinton liberalism, so that America can prevail in the 21st century?

Look at all the warnings, the meetings with Clarke, the meeting with Tenet, and ask yourself: is it possible that Rice, Cheney and a few others decided to ignore the AQ threat, even though they knew that people were going to die?

B

 

[gumboot]

Overall, although radical islamism is a threat, it is clearly a minor one, provided we deal with it in an intelligent way (ie exactly the opposit of what's been done in the last 10 years).

We are a hundred times stronger than they are. Let's not overestimate this thing. Without the war in IQ and if the Is-Pa conflict had been settled, just try to imagine how the world would be today...

This is really more of a politics discussion, so I don't want to get too involved in it, but just for the record I don't agree with you at all.

I believe Radical Islam is a serious threat, I believe it is a threat that has been brewing for a long time, I believe currently they are stronger than us, though smaller in number, and I believe we only grow weaker while they continue to strengthen.

IMHO as always.

-Gumboot

 

[busherie]

This is really more of a politics discussion, so I don't want to get too involved in it, but just for the record I don't agree with you at all.

I believe Radical Islam is a serious threat, I believe it is a threat that has been brewing for a long time, I believe currently they are stronger than us, though smaller in number, and I believe we only grow weaker while they continue to strengthen.

IMHO as always.

-Gumboot

Ok, no more political discussion. About Islam, I don't see how they are stronger than us (compare GDPs), but I do see how WE are making them stronger...

More 9/11 related: What about the Rice-Tenet july 11th dicussion I discussed in a post above?

Sign of LIHOP?

 

[gumboot]

About Islam, I don't see how they are stronger than us (compare GDPs), but I do see how WE are making them stronger...

Their will to achieve their goals is greater than our will to resist them. As time progresses, and they make advances, their will only increases. As the west becomes more liberal and pacifist, and as our nations become more multicultural and politically-correct, our will to resist them fades.

Bear in mind I'm not talking about a military threat. I don't think the Holy Army of Islam is going to invade the US on a fleet of battleships, armed with AK-47s and grenades.

They have declared their intentions many times. They will destroy our society precisely the same way Roman Civilisation was destroyed. They will infiltrate our societies, and they will turn our laws and our culture and our media against us. They will destroy us from the inside out, through assimilation.

More 9/11 related: What about the Rice-Tenet july 11th dicussion I discussed in a post above?

Sign of LIHOP?

I don't see it that way. I honestly can't think of a single way the US Administration could have prevented 9/11 based on "Bin Laden is determined to attack the US this fall".

Attacking US civilians, and attacking on US soil, was not Osama Bin Laden's MO. His previous attacks had always been against American military or government assets in the Middle-east.

Is was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was obsessed with attacking US civilian targets, particularly the WTC and airlines. Did the US Government know what KSM was up to? Did they know he had got into bed with Al Qaeda?

-Gumboot