Addressing problems with the government's account

Yep, reality and logic are non-political. I was in favor of removing Saddam, but didn't like the way it was done and I voted for Ralph Nader (twice). Yep if incompetence was a crime I'd go for impeachment too.

Having lurked here for awhile I've seen this odd mental position protrayed: support of logic and reality = support for Bush. Nutty.
 
The 9/11 Truth Movement needs to understand that there are far more rational and persuasive reasons for opposing the war in Iraq than "inside job" foolishness.

However, since they can't even do that, they will never understand that there were rational and persuasive reason FOR invading Iraq. As far as I can tell, they honestly believe that No 9/11= No Iraq War. Yes, the attacks were a contributing reason to the general decision to invade, but they were not and could not be a sufficient reason.

If there had been no 9/11 attack, George Bush would still have built the political will to invade Iraq. It would have been a far more controversial decision, but he would have made it happen. Framing America/Israel for 9/11 isn't exposing anything relevant about the causes of the Iraq War.
 
Boloboffin

I saw an interesting discussion of "would the Iraqi war have happened without 911" it was in the Economist or Atlantic Magazine some years ago. There view was yes, it would have occurred just 2-3 years later and with European support.
 
boloboffin said:
The 9/11 Truth Movement needs to understand that there are far more rational and persuasive reasons for opposing the war in Iraq than "inside job" foolishness.
Click to expand...

A fact recognized by 99.99%+ of war opposers. Hence the poor reception of twoothers when they try to glom onto legitimate war protests.
 
I make no bones about it, I supported the war in Iraq initially because I believed that SH DID have weapons of mass destruction - he did after all use nerve gases on some internal dissident villages & against the Iranians on occassion & I thought that we should go in there & get him.

However, I've come to the belief that we (the US & the UK) went about it the wrong way, other options than war should've been explored & war should only have been an absolute last resort.
 
Most of the issues raised relate to information the 9/11 Commission would have gathered from suspected Al Qaeda members. Therefore they can only offer an insight into the actions and activities of Al Qaeda.

Nothing they can offer would have any significant offering on what actually happened on 9/11, nor on the government activities in preventing terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 (which was, in fact, the primary reason for the Commission).

The information in the commission about Al Qaeda is strongly collaborated from other sources that did not use torture - such as The Looming Tower and countless other media interviews with various people.

And, once again, like a broken record, let's try to remember that the 9/11 Commission was neither the only, nor the first, nor the main investigation into 9/11.
 
The first version of "The Origin of the Species" was not likely perfect, and likely contained errors, misinterpretations, inadequacies, but on the whole the narrative of what it tries to explain was consistent, fit the evidence, and reached appropriate conclusions. This is why it has persevered to this day.

The 9/11 Commission Report is along the same vane.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
I agree with Lensman, personally.

I never voted for Bush (although I did view him as the lesser of two evils in 2004; as I've stated before, people who turn their backs on the oath they swore to support the military in the fight against our enemies lose any respect they might have gotten from me (Mr. Kerry, I'm talking to you)). I cannot bring myself to believe that removing an evil tyrant from power could ever be considered a bad thing. But we did go about it in the wrong way, and with the wrongly interpreted information. Mistakes such as those made with the supposed WMD intel are inexcusable, and are part and parcel of what I'm so interested in helping to fix within the US Intel Community. With any luck, the changes being made throughout the IC will prevent something like that from occurring again.
 
Sabrina said:
I never voted for Bush (although I did view him as the lesser of two evils in 2004; as I've stated before, people who turn their backs on the oath they swore to support the military in the fight against our enemies lose any respect they might have gotten from me (Mr. Kerry, I'm talking to you)).
Click to expand...
You seem to be conflating supporting the military with supporting any damn fool thing that the president tells them to do.

These are two different things, as is easily demonstrated by observing what the military think of President Bush and the war.

According to Stars and Stripes, in February 2006, 72% of troops in Iraq wanted withdrawal within the year.

And I supported the troops. Did you?

In December 2006, a poll conducted by the Military Times reported that 65% of troops (in Iraq, at home, and elsewhere) disapproved of the way Bush had handled the war. 59% thought that the invasion should never have happened in the first place.

It seems that I was with the troops on this one. And yourself?
 
Last edited:
LastChild said:
Oh I forgot one. Some debunkers merely use 9/11 conspiracy as an excuse to make apologies for the present crooked administration and distract from their illegal war.
Click to expand...

And this is why you are not taken seriously. This is why you are mocked.

Before the Iraq war started I matched, sunbeam, I got off my arse and I marched to protest this war.I have done so after it started.

I do so based on FACT not your sad and deluded spin on a terrorist attack that resulted in the deaths of 3000 innocent people from over 70 countries.

The only excuser here is you and your deluded movement who have the nerve to try and tap into genuine feelings. You have the nerve to tell me and my friends that we support this war and support the present US administration.

YOU ARE WRONG.

Grow up.
 
Dr Adequate said:
You seem to be conflating supporting the military with supporting any damn fool thing that the president tells them to do.

These are two different things, as is easily demonstrated by observing what the military think of President Bush and the war.

According to Stars and Stripes, in February 2006, 72% of troops in Iraq wanted withdrawal within the year.

And I supported the troops. Did you?

In December 2006, a poll conducted by the Military Times reported that 65% of troops (in Iraq, at home, and elsewhere) disapproved of the way Bush had handled the war. 59% thought that the invasion should never have happened in the first place.

It seems that I was with the troops on this one. And yourself?
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not conflating anything.

I have no issue with Mr. Kerry not supporting the Vietnam war; that was his choice and I fully support that. But when a person turns their back on the very institution that supported them and essentially spits in their face by tossing honors that institution wanted them to have back at them, that I have a problem with. I know quite a few troops who didn't support the war and yet still managed to perform the duty they swore they would do; Mr. Kerry did not. I can't tell you the number of active duty soldiers who viewed Mr. Kerry as a hypocritical person because he tried to use his service to bolster his campaign. At least the ones I personally spoke to felt that way; I can't point to any opinion polls to support that position however.

And incidentally, I WAS and STILL AM a soldier, and I take my oath of service VERY seriously, so please do not call my support of the troops into question again.
 
T.A.M. said:
The first version of "The Origin of the Species" was not likely perfect, and likely contained errors, misinterpretations, inadequacies, but on the whole the narrative of what it tries to explain was consistent, fit the evidence, and reached appropriate conclusions. This is why it has persevered to this day.

The 9/11 Commission Report is along the same vane.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

REP. LEE HAMILTON: The whole mindset of the Commission is very different from the one your question suggests. Our mindset was focused on the future, not on the past. We did look back; we had to look back to try to understand how we could improve things, but we really took most seriously the responsibility to try to figure out how to prevent this from happening in the future.

We believe that if we had looked back and said, okay, this figure, that figure was responsible for 9/11, it would just have created a firestorm, and we would have had no chance of putting forward recommendations that would be acceptable to the Congress and to the president and to the American people. We would have destroyed any chance of a bipartisan result here.

Our principal task, as we saw it, was to try to help make the country more secure and looking back, and assigning blame to a person or even an agency wasn't the way to do it.

JIM LEHRER: And you made that decision, Congressman, right at the very beginning, you were not going to do that, the ten of you?

REP. LEE HAMILTON: We made the decision very early on that we were not going to play the blame game, that that was not what we wanted to do and that if we were going to make a constructive, positive contribution to the future, we had to approach this in a different way.

And as we looked into it, we more and more became persuaded that the failures here were not individual but systemic. And that was what we then began to focus on.

pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec04/commission_7-22.html
Click to expand...
Hamilton became persuaded the failures were systemic. Wow. Hard to believe considering that blaming individuals was taken off the table "very early on." How did Hamilton's decision to limit the scope of the investigation for political reasons make the country more secure?

Do we now have a Department of Homeland Security and a National Intelligence Director because the President, the National Security Advisor and the CIA Director failed to clock in for work in the months leading up to 9/11? Perhaps. We will never know because the 9/11 Commission was more interested in achieving a "bipartisan result" than conducting a 'let the chips fall where they may' investigation.
 
Last edited:
thatsmystory said:
Hamilton became persuaded the failures were systemic. Wow. Hard to believe considering that blaming individuals was taken off the table "very early on." How did Hamilton's decision to limit the scope of the investigation for political reasons make the country more secure?
Click to expand...
because very little, if anything, in our system of government, especially when it comes to security, rests on a single idividual

so any individual blamed for failing to prevent 9/11 would have been nothing more than a scapegoat
 
thatsmystory said:
I get some of the criticism of 9/11 truthers. What I don't understand is the seeming acceptance by some of the government's conduct in relation to investigating 9/11. For example, that some of the 9/11 Commission account was based on testimony derived from torture. That the Commission didn't get any access to the detainees. That the CIA destroyed interrogation tapes. That the Commission voted to keep supportive evidence classified until 1/09.
Click to expand...

Where has anybody said that they accept any of that?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
because very little, if anything, in our system of government, especially when it comes to security, rests on a single idividual

so any individual blamed for failing to prevent 9/11 would have been nothing more than a scapegoat
Click to expand...
The only way to know for sure is by conducting a thorough investigation. IMO the circumstantial evidence suggests Bush, Rice and Tenet were all derelict in their duty.
 
thatsmystory said:
The only way to know for sure is by conducting a thorough investigation. IMO the circumstantial evidence suggests Bush, Rice and Tenet were all derelict in their duty.
Click to expand...
you answer my post about not blaming scapegoats by blaming 3 scapegoats, good job
 
thatsmystory said:
How did Hamilton's decision to limit the scope of the investigation for political reasons make the country more secure?

... We will never know because the 9/11 Commission was more interested in achieving a "bipartisan result" than conducting a 'let the chips fall where they may' investigation.
Click to expand...


Wherein any of that quoted material do they say they limited their investigation?

We believe that if we had looked back and said, okay, this figure, that figure was responsible for 9/11, it would just have created a firestorm,


...Our principal task, as we saw it, was to try to help make the country more secure and looking back, and assigning blame to a person or even an agency wasn't the way to do it.
Click to expand...



They didn't limit their investigation, they limited their conclusions. You've (deliberately?) misinterpreted their statements to support your accusations that no real investigation was done, when the quoted material simply does not support that position.

Feel free to chastise them for not blaming any particular individuals, but at least chastise them for the choices they actually made, rather than your own fantasies about what choices they made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom