Heh. I'm originally from Claremore, lived there up until about 4 years ago, when I got the Arkansas job. Now Oklahoma City is my home base.
I had no idea about Tulsa Truth, I'll have to check 'em out. Oklahoma Truthers....there's a recipe for dumb!
We need an independent investigation!
- Thread starter Btodd
- Start date
Heh. I'm originally from Claremore, lived there up until about 4 years ago, when I got the Arkansas job. Now Oklahoma City is my home base.
I had no idea about Tulsa Truth, I'll have to check 'em out. Oklahoma Truthers....there's a recipe for dumb!
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
Don't waste too much time or brainpower checking them out.
They were another of the groups crowing about the martial law that was supposed to have happened back in October. The video's still on their site, too.
They were another of the groups crowing about the martial law that was supposed to have happened back in October. The video's still on their site, too.
eromitlab
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 919
The Bush administration had an itch to go to war in Iraq. This much we're fairly sure of. What I fail to understand, however, is how the Bush administration connecting Iraq and Saddam to al-Qaeda and 9/11 after the fact means that the Bush administration had some sort of hand in 9/11. That argument is laid out by the truth movement, but never connected; it's dangled out there and truthers go "well, what about that?" Because Y happened after the fact, they're guilty of X?
Sounds more like 9/11 happened and they used it to help justify going into Iraq. Certainly makes a lot more sense than W and Friends planned or allowed 9/11, conducted by an extremist group with no ties to Iraq, headed by a person with no ties to Iraq save a dislike for Saddam, executed by 19 extremists with no ties to Iraq, to justify a war with a country that didn't pose the threat to the world the administration claimed it did, and the war was justified by the administration having to work at it against logic and evidence to make the connection after the fact.
Logic would dictate that if the administration had a hand in planning and executing 9/11, there would have been Iraqi ties to the hijackers, they would have been attributed to a group based in or tied to Iraq, our troops would have found the mobile labs and yellowcake from Niger, and so on. Unless the government master planners who planned 9/11 wanted the Bush administration to squander all of its international good will, look like incompetent fools, waste thousands of lives and billions of dollars, ensure a resounding public turn against Republican leaders and policies...
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I've walked across Oklahoma, Panhandle included. Nice people! (Of course, I stayed away from the citified places.)Heh. I'm originally from Claremore, lived there up until about 4 years ago, when I got the Arkansas job. Now Oklahoma City is my home base.
I had no idea about Tulsa Truth, I'll have to check 'em out. Oklahoma Truthers....there's a recipe for dumb!
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Heh. I'm originally from Claremore, lived there up until about 4 years ago, when I got the Arkansas job. Now Oklahoma City is my home base.
I had no idea about Tulsa Truth, I'll have to check 'em out. Oklahoma Truthers....there's a recipe for dumb!
I was in Okie last month for a couple of weeks. Stayed down Bricktown way.
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
That's too bad, Gravy. The citified places have a lot of history and Tulsa in particular has a very rich collection of art-deco buildings if your'e into historical architecture at all.
Boston Avenue Methodist Church
And our beer laws are getting less and less restrictive...
/End of derail. How bout that investigation?
Last edited:
We have been over this. I will grant you, it is not CYA, so you score a point for that one, but it is also not in anyway, to anyone with intelligence these days, related to who actually carried out 9/11. It was the Bush Admin taking advantage of the situation, and using it to promote the "Bush Doctrine".
Oh and by the way, how "almost immediately after" was it?
TAM
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
We have been over this. I will grant you, it is not CYA, so you score a point for that one, but it is also not in anyway, to anyone with intelligence these days, related to who actually carried out 9/11. It was the Bush Admin taking advantage of the situation, and using it to promote the "Bush Doctrine".
Oh and by the way, how "almost immediately after" was it?
TAM
Depends on who you ask, but by Richard Clarke's account it was literally the next day.
Now, let's say that there was no inside job. AQ attacks us. The president and his administration scurry to respond to the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.
Why would Bush, Cheney,Rummy, et al turn any attention whatsoever to Iraq? I know the political motivations against Saddam, but I think Bush would take any opportunity to appear like a righteous cowboy and focus all of his attention on OBL and AQ. Then, he would ferret out any incompetence in intel, the military, etc to look even more on the case.
Granted, he's a complete idiot, but those around him were not. Hypothetically, the rush to attack Iraq might have been in part because they knew AQ was not the highly effective organization that was able to hijack aircraft, avoid shoot down, attack the center of our defensive organization and bring down seven WTC bldgs.
Because if they were, how can the administration be sure they wouldn't have done it again, and possibly, with an even worse attack?
This is the flaw in the CYA argument. If CYA is comprehensive, it could have led to an even greater attack, and even more criminal negligence.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,583
RedIbis makes a lot of good points. Except for the part where the U.S. actually had it's attention turned initially towards Afghanistan and the al-Qaeda-supporting Taliban regime. And that the U.S. didn't actually invade Iraq until a year and a half after 9/11. But other than that small bit of historical revisionism, it's a spot-on analysis.
That made me laugh. I wonder how old Red is. I often find people get their history skewed when they were too young to really pay attention to how things unfolded and read about it later. That's just pure conjecture on my part though, and almost certainly wrong in Red's case. I expect he's pushing 60. Which brings in another option: premature senility.
Bananaman.
I am presently reading "your government failed you" and so far I see no mention of this. You have a reference for this?
I think if there is valid proof that the Bush admin turned to Iraq as the cause of 9/11 within the first few days, it certainly does point to an agenda (although I am not arguing that they haven't had such an agenda since the 1990s). I doubt that such proof exists. I certainly do not recall any mention of such in the first 2-3 months after the attacks. Like I said, you'll need a quoted reference for that one Red.
TAM
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I am strongly interested in architecture and I didn't know that about Tulsa. _Sings "Take Me Back to Tulsa"_
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
I am presently reading "your government failed you" and so far I see no mention of this. You have a reference for this?
I think if there is valid proof that the Bush admin turned to Iraq as the cause of 9/11 within the first few days, it certainly does point to an agenda (although I am not arguing that they haven't had such an agenda since the 1990s). I doubt that such proof exists. I certainly do not recall any mention of such in the first 2-3 months after the attacks. Like I said, you'll need a quoted reference for that one Red.
TAM
It's covered in detail in Clarke's Against All Enemies. In a review in Slate, they excerpt this passage:
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,583
This conversation took place the day after 9/11, and as we all know (well, maybe you don't, judging by the content of your previous post), nothing actually came of it. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of al-Qaeda, not Iraq.
Your insistence on misrepresenting what actually took place is either from extreme ignorance or malicious dishonesty. I'll let you choose which.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,583
This is tantamount to using out of context quotes by firefighters about "bombs" and "explosions" as proof of an inside job.
Which, come to think of it, is something RedIbis also does.
I guess when you don't have any actual evidence, you've got to make due with what you've got.
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
More importantly, what does Richard Clarke think, in terms of who perpetrated 9/11?
We know the answer, but I guess he is only right when it suits a particular agenda.
TAM
I'm not sure who is favorite baseball team is either, but what's important is that his account has Bush & Co. gearing up to attack Iraq immediately after the attacks.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,583
Which they didn't do.
Do you have anymore accounts of theoretical events that never actually took place? They're very informative.
Last edited:
Another dirt dumb idea from 911Truth. With logic like this it is not strange for delusion believers to ask for another investigation even though they never read the hundreds of reports on 911 in the first place.