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

[yankee451]

No. Not even close.


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


Tragically, your version is a complete non starter.

Well then it's lucky for us all this thread is about who benefitted from 9/11.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Well then it's lucky for us all this thread is about who benefitted from 9/11.

The hijackers. They thought they were going to an everlasting paradise, right up until they died.

 

[Nick Terry]

Means: our tax dollars at work.

Did the US government drop these tax dollars on the Twin Towers in $20 or $100 bills? Is this a new Truther theory of total collapse or am I missing something here.

I'm confused: walk us through exactly what the US government did to bring down those Towers and strike the Pentagon. Space beams, controlled demolitions, mini-nukes - what did the job?

Motive:

So you're saying that the US government and military killed 3000 of its own citizens purely so it could accelerate the revolution in military affairs?

That really doesn't sound like a very good motive to me.

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

But did the US military have access to four airliners owned by American Airlines and United Airlines? Or were those holograms?

 

[Nick Terry]

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?

You do realise that by your logic, Iran must have hypnotised GWB into attacking Iraq in 2003 since Iran are the clear beneficiary of the destabilisation of Iraq, while the US ended up shut out and couldn't secure either the military bases or the oil contracts it fantasised about in 2003.

 

[timhau]

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.

I happened to have quite a bit of excess cash in the fall of 2008, so I benefited from the stock market crash. Ergo, I'm responsible for the crash.

Gosh, making history never was so easy.

 

[Courier]

Well then it's lucky for us all this thread is about who benefitted from 9/11.

That's not what this thread is about.

 

[beachnut]

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

Your silly missile fantasy failed. Why do you spread so much BS?

The airspace in the US is mostly civilian. The military is run by civilians. The military has to have clearance to use the airspace. Try research next time.

 

[BStrong]

I happened to have quite a bit of excess cash in the fall of 2008, so I benefited from the stock market crash. Ergo, I'm responsible for the crash.

Gosh, making history never was so easy.

I did a year w/ Dyncorp 03-04, so I guess I'm in too.

 

[Axxman300]

Presumably you would condemn Arab countries or Iran for carrying out such actions, so why do you think it's okay for the US to do it?

The fact you think the US deserves 'credit' for halting some summary execution speaks to an imperialist mentality. Let's turn the tables again. If Iran decided to carry out assassinations against US politicians who regularly make threats of violence against them, would you support this?

There is a difference between making threats and carrying them out. Iran has killed Americans and we have never responded with force. It is a huge contention between the US government and its people too. It is what has allowed the wars in west Asia to continue. There is a lot of bad blood that dates back to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of the late 1970s.

In fact, it was because of Iran that President Carter made the free flow of oil a direct matter of national security which lead to the construction of US airbases in Saudi Arabia, and the backing of Iraq against Iran in their war.

Non-violence and containment has lead us into two wars, and is leading to the next one.

What a country, even Iran, does in the context of a war is fair game. If we strike Iran I expect them to hit back.

What is lost in this entire conversation is the simple fact that if we really wanted to use our full destructive force there would be no life above the microbe level in Afghanistan and Iraq, or any of the other countries we've "devastated" since the end of WWII.

 

[Reactor drone]

Seems to me that if I had an army and was itching for a reason to use it on Enemy A, all I would need to do would be to attack some of my own innocent people and make it look like Enemy A did it. Isn't that how it's been done since before Sparticus?

Or you could accuse them of violating weapons sanctions which is what happened in Iraq. Had they wanted to attack Afghanistan (why would anyone?) they could have used human rights abuses as a pretext.

If 9/11 was orchestrated by the US as a means of starting wars for profit then someone really needs to reassess their cost/benefit analysis.

 

[yankee451]

That's not what this thread is about.

One of the first steps in discovering who did it and why is to discover who benefitted from it.

Who benefits from invasions? The invaded or the invader?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

This is, as I'm sure you realise, a strawman argument. The point is not whether it's worth considering which parties might gain from a crime. The point is that if a politician turns an event to their advantage that does not prove that they orchestrated the event in the first place. All politicians try to turn events to their advantage all the time.

 

[yankee451]

Or you could accuse them of violating weapons sanctions which is what happened in Iraq. Had they wanted to attack Afghanistan (why would anyone?) they could have used human rights abuses as a pretext.

If 9/11 was orchestrated by the US as a means of starting wars for profit then someone really needs to reassess their cost/benefit analysis.

War is our business, and business is good.

Weapons are America's hottest export, so it's in their best interests to foment fear, revolution and strife so as to ensure future markets. In this context, the CIA would be the marketing arm for the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. So how well has the arms industry increased profits since 9/11? Why, it's been a bang-up time to be in the destruction industry, for sure:

The Department of Defense last year told Congress of plans to sell up to $103 billion in weapons to overseas buyers, a staggering rise from an average of $13 billion a year between 1995 and 2005, according to Deutsche Bank analyst Myles Walton. Signed agreements have tripled since 2000.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/news/international/america_exports_weapons_full.fortune/index.htm

 

[yankee451]

I happened to have quite a bit of excess cash in the fall of 2008, so I benefited from the stock market crash. Ergo, I'm responsible for the crash.

Gosh, making history never was so easy.

If you had publicly stated that you were planning on crashing the stock market so you could profit handsomely from it, and then it crashed and you profited handsomely from it, in a real world in a galaxy far, far away, you'd probably fall under suspicion, yes.

 

[Courier]

One of the first steps in discovering who did it and why is to discover who benefitted from it.

Who benefits from invasions? The invaded or the invader?

Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for 9-11 countless times.

Their supporters celebrate on 9-11.

Al Qaeda members were found guilty for their involvement in the 9-11 plot in Federal court.

Your side is morally broken.

 

[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?

Your paraphrasing skills could use some sprucing-up.

And yet (emphasis mine)...

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.

It always applies.

So... where exactly did I go wrong in my paraphrasing?

 

[yankee451]

I did a year w/ Dyncorp 03-04, so I guess I'm in too.

I pay my taxes which help fund the murder of innocents. I don't like being a part of murder, but if I don't pay my taxes I will be arrested. If I resist arrest, I will be killed. This is extortion which I find unacceptable, but at least I don't lie to myself by pretending I'm not part of it.

 

[Courier]

I pay my taxes which help fund the murder of innocents. I don't like being a part of murder, but if I don't pay my taxes I will be arrested. If I resist arrest, I will be killed. This is extortion which I find unacceptable, but at least I don't lie to myself by pretending I'm not part of it.

If you resist arrest you will get tazed, not killed.

 

[yankee451]

Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for 9-11 countless times.

Not so.

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

Their supporters celebrate on 9-11.

Al Qaeda members were found guilty for their involvement in the 9-11 plot in Federal court.

Your side is morally broken.

The courts are run by the same clique who put Bush into office, and all of this is information you received from the media mouthpieces of those who have profited handsomely from 9/11.

Question, when is a CIA agent no longer a CIA agent?

 

[yankee451]

So... where exactly did I go wrong in my paraphrasing?

Exactly here:

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?