A question for debunkers, inspired by Chomsky:

[JihadJane]

Former member of the 9/11 Omission Commission "to be named CIA director".

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Reports_ExClinton_aide_Panetta_to_be_0105.html

 

[Bell]

The911 Commission's full title already contains the Commission's predefined conclusion.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

What is predefined in this title?
Terrorists attacked the US and killed nearly 3000 people.

Well done for answering your own question.

And what is YOUR answer to my question?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Your naiveté of U.S. Politics is duly noted. You have to be joking if you don't think the Dems wouldn't nail Bush and Co. if there was something there to nail them with. You've misrepresented the quote completely, what Gordon is saying is there is no there there. The evidence clearly points to an Al-Qaeda attack, but truthers continue to ignore this overwhelming conclusion because it doesn't fit their fantasies.

While your points about Al-Qaeda is correct, it's my personal opinion that he's also correct - namely, that there wasn't going to be any finger pointing at any administration.

Think about it - the Dems had been spanked hard when the USSR folded under Reagan - for years they had been saying that detente was the best that anyone should expect in the cold war. But Reagan showed that THAT idea was bullshi*. And Clinton was the only bright spot that they had at the time, after being shown that their appeasement of communism - responsible for more mass murder than any other political system - to be borderline traitorous, IMHO. Couple that with the possibility that at the time, they had the idea that Hildebeast may very likely one day be a Pres candidate, due to the not-so-small fact of their fund raising ability. So they *may* have indeed made a deal - maybe a wink wink sort of thing - that if you don't attack our guy, then we won't go after yours.

Cuz I think, again my personal opinion, that Clinton could bear maybe 90% of the blame for 9/11. There had been attacks by AQ for years against us, and let's face it, the intelligence failure was a SYSTEMIC one, that could only be fixed by the Pres. Clinton had 8 years to fix it, but did nothing that I can see. Bush can also be blamed - and rightly so - cuz he should have done more during his short time to fix it, but instead took lotsa vacations. So he could be blamed also - not so good for a sitting Pres.

So what did Reps have to gain from not putting any blame on the individuals inside the intel system? Bush realized that the task fell on his head, and going after those bureaucrats would NOT help him out if he wanted to act swiftly.

And what did the Dems give to keep the blame off of Clinton? Funding for the wars, something that came apparent to me after the '06 elections, where so many dem candidates ran on a ticket of ending funding, getting out, etc.... that in the end resulted in nothing.

 

[TexasJack]

While your points about Al-Qaeda is correct, it's my personal opinion that he's also correct - namely, that there wasn't going to be any finger pointing at any administration.

As far as systematic failures, it is true that blame could pointed at the agencies of both administrations. However, the Dems, still steaming from a stolen election, had uncovered anything that pointed blame of the Bush Administrations direct involvement in the deaths of 3000 people, would have definitely nailed them on it.

 

[Seymour Butz]

As far as systematic failures, it is true that blame could pointed at the agencies of both administrations. However, the Dems, still steaming from a stolen election, had uncovered anything that pointed blame of the Bush Administrations direct involvement in the deaths of 3000 people, would have definitely nailed them on it.

Stolen election?

Oh, you mean where the USSC - including liberal Clinton appointee and certified wack job Ruth Ginsberg - unanomously ruled that Florida's SC ruling to continue the recount to be against their own state constitution, and then vacated it? LOLZ....

But you're right, there would have been NO deals to be made under those circumstances. Bush would have been toast - literally.....

 

[JohnG]

Your follow-up post doesn't address my question about the US State being your Mummy (Daddy would be more likely).

I and many many others here have said on multiple occasions that Bush and company are the biggest bunch of incompetent lowlifes ever to occupy the White House. Why do you and other Truthers insist on clinging to the erroneous belief that all Debunkers are by definition Bush supporters? Do you actually not get it? Do you not believe it? Or do you simply choose to ignore it because gets in the way of all the lazy demonizing? Please choose one, or offer another explanation. I'm genuinely curious.

I think Hitler is one of the most evil humans in history, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he had anything to do with, say the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. If someone had accused Hitler of being involved in that crime and I asked for evidence, would that make me a "Hitler supporter"?

And please give the ""Mommy" and "Daddy" talk a rest, it makes you sound like a child.

It’s also relevant to your comment and to the OP to note that social scientists have repeatedly discovered that people do evil things because they are in evil situations rather than because they are inherently evil. This also applies, to some extent, to the kind of criminal sociopaths and psychopaths who are attracted to power.

"It's situations that make ordinary people into evil monsters, and it's situations that make ordinary people into heroes," said Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford University and author of "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil."

Charting the psychology of evil, decades after 'shock' experiment

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/19/milgram.experiment.obedience/index.html

You may want to sit down for this, but I actually agree with a lot of that. Very interesting. I have long suspected that there are an inordinately large number of people with sociopathic tendencies in the upper levels of big business and government. Now that we've shared that brief but happy "kumbaya" moment, where's the evidence that the US Government orchestrated (or tacitly allowed) the 9/11 attacks?

 

[Baylor]

Charting the psychology of evil, decades after 'shock' experiment

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/19/milgram.experiment.obedience/index.html

You forgot to mention that many subjects chose not to inflict the fatal voltage. Why do twoofers always cite sources that only hurt their case?

 

[Ragnarok]

You forgot to mention that many subjects chose not to inflict the fatal voltage. Why do twoofers always cite sources that only hurt their case?

About 65 percent of participants pulled levers corresponding to the maximum voltage -- 450 volts -- in spite of the screams of agony from the learner.

That snippet seems to indicate that there is a greater than 50:50 chance that people will choose to be an evil ****, given the opportunity. So, in effect, 1 in 2 of our government officials would tend to choose a harmful action if they are even slightly absolved of their moral responsibility. Hmm...what an uplifting statistic.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That snippet seems to indicate that there is a greater than 50:50 chance that people will choose to be an evil ****, given the opportunity. So, in effect, 1 in 2 of our government officials would tend to choose a harmful action if they are even slightly absolved of their moral responsibility. Hmm...what an uplifting statistic.

I think, sometimes, truthers conspiracy theorists are the only ones that condemn elected officials as being evil for simply being human.

 

[Ragnarok]

I think, sometimes, truthers conspiracy theorists are the only ones that condemn elected officials as being evil for simply being human.

That's it, concentrate on the hyperbole and ignore the facts.

Do humans have a propensity for inflicting pain and/or doing harmful things when they are absolved of moral responsibilty, or not? Are government officials somehow exempt from these tendencies?

 

[Baylor]

That snippet seems to indicate that there is a greater than 50:50 chance that people will choose to be an evil ****, given the opportunity. So, in effect, 1 in 2 of our government officials would tend to choose a harmful action if they are even slightly absolved of their moral responsibility. Hmm...what an uplifting statistic.

You are neglecting so many variables. More educated persons were less likely to inflict the fatal voltage than less educated persons. Government officials tend to be more on the 'educated' side. It's the uneducated twoofer crowd who has the blind obedience to authority. It's okay to hit someone who disagrees with you, even if that person is a girl in a wheelchair.

 

[Ragnarok]

You are neglecting so many variables. More educated persons were less likely to inflict the fatal voltage than less educated persons. Government officials tend to be more on the 'educated' side.

So, one variable then. Does this mean Mao or Stalin's governments were made up of imbeciles then? Because they never caused any harm, did they? Or for a more recent example, how about Hamas? Are they all intelligent men incapable of conceiving harm to others?

It's the uneducated twoofer crowd who has the blind obedience to authority. It's okay to hit someone who disagrees with you, even if that person is a girl in a wheelchair.

You're never going to pick out the details with a brush that wide, are you?

 

[tanabear]

Let me get this straight; you take my quote "I've learned enough to know that these sorts of massive, ingenious, diabolical conspiracies don't actually occur in the real world" and interpret it as meaning that I don't believe in conspiracies at all??

Of course conspiracies occur in the real world, but you're not interested in the real, ugly, banal stuff, are you? The only stuff that interests you is the exotic, mysterious, sexy "X Files" type of conspiracies. I understand, and to a certain extent I sympathize, but it's a very juvenile, not to mention erroneous way of viewing the world and its complexities.

Okay, so you believe in conspiracies, but you don't believe in "massive ingenious, diabolical conspiracies." You might want to clarify the distinction. However, I believe 9/11 can be classified as a "massive, ingenious, diabolical conspiracy" regardless of who executed the attacks. However, since you have conceded that you believe in conspiracies, the distinction is largely a debate over semantics.

And no, I don't believe in X-Files type of conspiracies. The X-Files had a secret group, The Syndicate, that was covering up the existence of extra-terrestrial life.

Your naiveté of U.S. Politics is duly noted. You have to be joking if you don't think the Dems wouldn't nail Bush and Co. if there was something there to nail them with. You've misrepresented the quote completely, what Gordon is saying is there is no there there. The evidence clearly points to an Al-Qaeda attack, but truthers continue to ignore this overwhelming conclusion because it doesn't fit their fantasies.

What naiveté are you referring too? The 9/11 Commission Report itself states the following, "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned." Thomas Kean said, "Any person in a senior position within our government during this time bears some element of responsibility for our government's actions. Having said that, it is not our purpose to assign blame." The Commission was not looking to blame any one individual or institution, therefore, it was a bland, watered-down, toothless report. Besides, the statement from Slade Gordon had nothing to do with whether or not Al-Qaeda was responsible. It was in-line with the previous statements, not assigning blame or holding anyone accountable for 9/11.

As well, the Democrats, as a political party, are primarily concerned with getting and maintaining political power. They aren't concerned with high-minded principles like Justice and Truth. The Republican Party has been imploding over the last 4 years due to their insane and stubborn support for George W. Bush. In 2004, Republicans held 55 Senate seats. After the 2008 elections, they are down to a measly 41 seats. This represents a huge loss of political power in a very short amount of time. What did the Democrats do the achieve such great success? Nothing, they just weren't seen as Bush apologists. If your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, why stop him? When the Republicans attempted and did impeach Clinton, his approval ratings went up and the Republicans did not fair well in the 1998 elections. So the Democrats took passive instead of pro-active positions and sailed to victory. But if you think politicians care about principles over power, then I'm not the one who is politically naive.

 

[TexasJack]

What naiveté are you referring too? The 9/11 Commission Report itself states the following, "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned." Thomas Kean said, "Any person in a senior position within our government during this time bears some element of responsibility for our government's actions. Having said that, it is not our purpose to assign blame." The Commission was not looking to blame any one individual or institution, therefore, it was a bland, watered-down, toothless report. Besides, the statement from Slade Gordon had nothing to do with whether or not Al-Qaeda was responsible. It was in-line with the previous statements, not assigning blame or holding anyone accountable for 9/11.

As well, the Democrats, as a political party, are primarily concerned with getting and maintaining political power. They aren't concerned with high-minded principles like Justice and Truth. The Republican Party has been imploding over the last 4 years due to their insane and stubborn support for George W. Bush. In 2004, Republicans held 55 Senate seats. After the 2008 elections, they are down to a measly 41 seats. This represents a huge loss of political power in a very short amount of time. What did the Democrats do the achieve such great success? Nothing, they just weren't seen as Bush apologists. If your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, why stop him? When the Republicans attempted and did impeach Clinton, his approval ratings went up and the Republicans did not fair well in the 1998 elections. So the Democrats took a passive instead of pro-active positions and sailed to victory. But if you think the politicians care about principles over power, then I'm not the one who is politically naive.

Wow, that one went right over your head. I agree that politicians thrive for power, it is for that very reason that if the Dems could have nailed 911 on Bush, they would have done so. Their opportunity to do so was 6 years ago, if they had any evidence of his involvement. There wasn't any, as the evidence demonstrates. Al Qaeda was proven to be the culprit. What Kean and others are speaking of are the balls that were dropped to prevent the attacks, not institute them.

Why you are rambling about the failings of the Reps recently, I have no idea. If the Dems had an opportunity to seize power 6 years ago, they would have done it; there was simply no opportunity to do so.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That's it, concentrate on the hyperbole and ignore the facts.

If you wanted people to concentrate on said facts, why attempt to distract them with hyperbole?

Do humans have a propensity for inflicting pain and/or doing harmful things when they are absolved of moral responsibilty, or not? Are government officials somehow exempt from these tendencies?

No, of course not. But the opposite is true, too.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That snippet seems to indicate that there is a greater than 50:50 chance that people will choose to be an evil ****, given the opportunity.

That quote reveals a misunderstanding of the findings of the experiment so fundamental that it seems pointless even to begin to explain it to you.

Dave

 

[JohnG]

Okay, so you believe in conspiracies, but you don't believe in "massive ingenious, diabolical conspiracies." You might want to clarify the distinction. However, I believe 9/11 can be classified as a "massive, ingenious, diabolical conspiracy" regardless of who executed the attacks. However, since you have conceded that you believe in conspiracies, the distinction is largely a debate over semantics.

You say that 9/11 can be classified as a "massive, ingenious, diabolical conspiracy" regardless of who executed the attacks. Even Al Qaeda? Let's see...

• Massive?

I'm not sure if anyone outside of Al Qaeda really knows how many people were involved in the conspiracy in total, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that it would be anywhere near the thousands of individuals who would by necessity be required for the sorts of plots Truthers talk about.

• Ingenious?

I suppose it could be argued that the Al Qaeda plan was ingenious in its simplicity... at least it seems simple compared to a plot that involves holograms, missiles/space weapons/remote controlled airplanes, thermite, real time voice morphing, real time CGI manipulation of video feeds, not to mention somehow fooling all the thousands (millions?) of eyewitnesses in New York while also keeping all of the many conspirators in line.

• Diabolical?

Killing innocent people that you perceive to be your enemy is downright evil, but killing your own innocent people and then blaming your enemy is diabolical. That's the distinction I'm trying to make.

And no, I don't believe in X-Files type of conspiracies. The X-Files had a secret group, The Syndicate, that was covering up the existence of extra-terrestrial life.

Perhaps you've forgotten or never heard about about the plot of the pilot episode of the X Files spinoff series The Lone Gunmen?

 

[JihadJane]

I and many many others here have said on multiple occasions that Bush and company are the biggest bunch of incompetent lowlifes ever to occupy the White House. Why do you and other Truthers insist on clinging to the erroneous belief that all Debunkers are by definition Bush supporters? Do you actually not get it? Do you not believe it? Or do you simply choose to ignore it because gets in the way of all the lazy demonizing? Please choose one, or offer another explanation. I'm genuinely curious.


I think Hitler is one of the most evil humans in history, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he had anything to do with, say the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. If someone had accused Hitler of being involved in that crime and I asked for evidence, would that make me a "Hitler supporter"?

I never said you were a Bush supporter.

And please give the ""Mommy" and "Daddy" talk a rest, it makes you sound like a child.

I use these words deleiberately to emphasise the infantle nature of your "How could you accuse my mother?" logic, partly with Alice Miller's well-known book "Thou Shallt Not Be Aware" in mind. The awareness she refers to is the awareness of child abuse by parents.

You may want to sit down for this, but I actually agree with a lot of that. Very interesting. I have long suspected that there are an inordinately large number of people with sociopathic tendencies in the upper levels of big business and government. Now that we've shared that brief but happy "kumbaya" moment, where's the evidence that the US Government orchestrated (or tacitly allowed) the 9/11 attacks?

Where is the evidence that al Qaeda/bin Laden acted alone?

 

[JihadJane]

Wow, that one went right over your head. I agree that politicians thrive for power, it is for that very reason that if the Dems could have nailed 911 on Bush, they would have done so. Their opportunity to do so was 6 years ago, if they had any evidence of his involvement. There wasn't any, as the evidence demonstrates.

By their own account the 911 Commission had to fight very hard to extract any information whatsoever from the obstructive Bush regime. You are assuming that Dems not having evidence of Bush complicity means that Bush wasn't complicit. It could equally indicate that the evidence has been successfully put beyond the Dem's reach.

The Rep/Dem game is a side-show to US deep politics.

Al Qaeda was proven to be the culprit.

This has never been proven and certainly wasn't proven by the manacled 911 Commission.

 

[funk de fino]

The Rep/Dem game is a side-show to US deep politics.

You're from the UK then eh?