Who is Behind 9/11 and Why? (Chomsky)

[Courier]

So in this case, "follow the money" to the people with the means, motive and opportunity doesn't apply, no that would be too simpleminded!

You guys kill me, really. You should have a comic show, or a magic act or something...no wait...

Its already been proven in court how the hijackers were funded, where they learned to fly planes, and what their motives were.

 

[yankee451]

Truth is, he won't even understand the mistake in his statement.

Well the USA doesn't "do body counts", so it depends on where you look to see how many hundreds of thousands were murdered.

 

[yankee451]

Murdered?

Who are these hundreds of thousands of people that we murdered?

These are estimates from Iraq -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press 110,600 violent deaths March 2003 to April 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Costs_of_War_Project&action=edit&redlink=1 176,000–189,000 violent deaths including 134,000 civilians[1][2][3]
March 2003 to February 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project 112,667–123,284 civilian deaths from violence. 174,000 civilian and combatant deaths[4][5][6][7] March 2003 to March 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Family_Health_Survey 151,000 violent deaths March 2003 to June 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths March 2003 to June 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict March 2003 to August 2007

And then there are the drones:

According to the statistics compiled by Pakistani authorities, the Afghanistan-based US drones killed 708 people in 44 predator attacks targeting the tribal areas between January 1 and December 31, 2009.

For each Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist killed by US drones, 140 innocent Pakistanis also had to die. Over 90 per cent of those killed in the deadly missile strikes were civilians, claim authorities

http://www.dawnnews.tv/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/18-over-700-killed-in-44-drone-strikes-in-2009-am-01

 

[yankee451]

What means?
What motive?
What opportunity?

There hasn't been a Truther who has provided a satisfactory answer to all three questions and provided a coherent alternative explanation. Heck, the contradictions over 'means' alone have been the source of endless entertainment in this sub-forum for years.

Means: our tax dollars at work.

Motive:

A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American
allies.

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Opportunity: No one has more access to US military hardware and US Airspace than the US Military.

 

[BStrong]

I suppose it's too simple to ask "who benefits"?

"International Terrorism" wouldn't exist if it didn't benefit the powers that use it as a pretext for invasion and occupation.

Oh, ********.

International terrorism exists because ******** with guns and an axe to grind want to spread the good news.

The old "follow the money" meme doesn't always apply.

 

[Courier]

These are estimates from Iraq -

And then there are the drones:

All cases of murder by US soldiers face trial.

How many American soldiers have been put on trial for murder?

Oh, I see. You consider EVERY SINGLE death in Iraq to be an act of murder.

How pathetic & ignorant.

 

[beachnut]

Well the USA doesn't "do body counts", so it depends on where you look to see how many hundreds of thousands were murdered.

19 terrorists did 911, and you make up lies about missiles and deny the murder. Then you bring policical claptrap to discussion on an event. You can't get on topic to save your silly missile fantasy of woo.

The best you can do is fantasy and paranoia.

After sparring with the intellectually-stunted blowhards at JREF, I assume everyone’s gunning for me, http://yankee451.com/2012/08/27/tired-of-war-without-end/

There is a political forum where you can take your off topic stuff. Why can't you find the political forum? You are JREF now. What did you call JREF posters?

 

[Courier]

19 Muslim extremist hijackers committed 9-11.

Case closed.

 

[JohnG]

So in this case, "follow the money" to the people with the means, motive and opportunity doesn't apply, no that would be too simpleminded!

Do you honestly believe that all people who will directly or indirectly profit from a crime (or at least think they will) are responsible for that crime?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Means: our tax dollars at work.

Motive:



Opportunity: No one has more access to US military hardware and US Airspace than the US Military.

Yeah, about that opportunity thing. While the simple explanation is that some people flew hijacked planes into buildings, we have previously been regaled by your version of events and it doesn't stand up. Actually, it's preposterous.

I do wonder why you can't bring yourself to imagine that the GWB administration might have exploited 9/11 to their own political advantage without also having deliberately caused it in the first place.

 

[yankee451]

Oh, ********.

International terrorism exists because ******** with guns and an axe to grind want to spread the good news.

The old "follow the money" meme doesn't always apply.[/QUOTE]

It always applies.

 

[yankee451]

Do you honestly believe that all people who will directly or indirectly profit from a crime (or at least think they will) are responsible for that crime?

Your paraphrasing skills could use some sprucing-up.

 

[yankee451]

All cases of murder by US soldiers face trial.

How many American soldiers have been put on trial for murder?

How many American soldiers have fulfilled their oath to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign or domestic?

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

To uphold that oath would require them to defend the constitution against our own leaders.

Oh, I see. You consider EVERY SINGLE death in Iraq to be an act of murder.

How pathetic & ignorant.

I consider all "war" to be mass murder, and considering the Iraq invasion and occupation would not have occurred without the crimes of 9/11, I consider their deaths to be a crime against humanity. If 9/11 was a false flag (it was), then the wars waged in it's name are aggressive wars which at Nuremberg they categorized as;

"essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

The Nazis didn't get away with claiming they were just following orders either.

 

[yankee451]

Yeah, about that opportunity thing. While the simple explanation is that some people flew hijacked planes into buildings, we have previously been regaled by your version of events and it doesn't stand up. Actually, it's preposterous.

I do wonder why you can't bring yourself to imagine that the GWB administration might have exploited 9/11 to their own political advantage without also having deliberately caused it in the first place.

My version of events is at least possible in the real world, and last I checked we haven't murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people over it; in fact if my version of events stands up to scrutiny (it does), the murders will stop and the real criminals would be brought to justice.

 

[BStrong]

Oh, ********.

International terrorism exists because ******** with guns and an axe to grind want to spread the good news.

The old "follow the money" meme doesn't always apply.[/QUOTE]

It always applies.

In popular fiction, yes.

In reality, not so much.

 

[BStrong]

How many American soldiers have fulfilled their oath to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign or domestic?



To uphold that oath would require them to defend the constitution against our own leaders.



I consider all "war" to be mass murder, and considering the Iraq invasion and occupation would not have occurred without the crimes of 9/11, I consider their deaths to be a crime against humanity. If 9/11 was a false flag (it was), then the wars waged in it's name are aggressive wars which at Nuremberg they categorized as;

The Nazis didn't get away with claiming they were just following orders either.

Then you'd better get your proof before a court of law.

 

[yankee451]

19 Muslim extremist hijackers committed 9-11.

Case closed.

Unless it was someone else with more means, motive and opportunity. In the last ten years, who has benefitted from these wars and occupations...I just can't put my finger on it.

 

[yankee451]

Then you'd better get your proof before a court of law.

In this economy with thousands of comedians out of work, they pop up in the most unlikely places.

What court would that be? The one that put Bush in office? Maybe some international court that isn't already controlled by the same people who approved of and profit from the carnage? It must have the clout to make the charges stick, so do tell. Which court would you suggest?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

My version of events is at least possible in the real world

No. Not even close.

and last I checked we haven't murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people over it

You're not concentrating. Your whole point so far is that you believe 'we' have.

in fact if my version of events stands up to scrutiny (it does), the murders will stop and the real criminals would be brought to justice.

Tragically, your version is a complete non starter.

 

[yankee451]

In popular fiction, yes.

In reality, not so much.

I'm sure on a forum such as this there must be some folks with a law enforcement background to put this burning question to rest.

Any ex or current detectives out there want to pipe in on BStrong's opinion that discovering who benefits most from a crime is an irrelevant line of investigation?