Not surprisingly it was self-published
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Kevin Ryan writes book, will blame 19 by name
- Thread starter Oystein
- Start date
Not surprisingly it was self-published
Well I agree that Dick, Donald are innocent of 9/11, however much they are guilty of other crap.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Wind the clock back. You need to remember the sucker punch shock of this attack. Intelligence Dick and Donald relied on had failed. It could have been atom bombs instead of planes had they had them. At the time few Americans, including they could distinguish between the Sunnis and Shiites. http://sictransittecnicamundi.blogspot.com/2006/10/sunni-and-shia-map-tells-it-all.html
Iraq was still an enemy of democracy (and US) refusing to allow UN inspectors to further check their wmd facilities. Intelligence was wrong about the radical Muslim 9/11 attacks, they could be wrong about Iraq's participation in this. Cleaning house made sense at this time.
There have been, except for the Boston bombings, no other successful radical Muslim or other radical nuts, attacks in 12 years.
The barbarians are at the gate, let's not lose our nerve.
We're on the side of reason.
Civilized society depends on us.
Last edited:
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Oh, I'd just get in trouble over there. The guys I consult with on radar issues actually came together during the TWA800 investigation as consultants for the families of those killed on that flight. Their focus was the fdr and radar evidence. I'm afraid they agree with the documentary's premise. So, I'll sit that one out.
I went there to see if the 19 "suspects" were named, but they weren't.
Typical snake-oil advertising. "If you want to know the truth, you have to buy my book."
Oh, well, I voted up the 1-star reviews while I was there.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
A hero on the LIHOPian side, maybe. His work pretty much undermines any MIHOP.
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
What the heck is "civilized" about lying about the very reason for attacking Iraq? Bush claimed that Saddam didn't even allow the inspectors in yet that is a provable lie!: Proof That Will Send Him to Prison: Bush's Lie Exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni8hR-x2S9I&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dQUb-sj-DxuDLdPtiMrKjZ4
(who knows how many Americans believe Bush's lie?
And what is "civilized" about a country made so ignorant that 70% thing Saddam was linked to 9/11? "Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country." http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
Bin Laden openly declared war on the U.S. two times in public declarations known as the 1996 and 1998 Fatwas. http://tinyurl.com/1996fatwa http://tinyurl.com/1998fatwa
and the reason he was able to motivate people to attack the U.S. is because U.S. foreign policy is wrong. (although U.S. mass media would like to tell a different story and ignores the facts when they are revealed even from official sources. "President Eisenhower asked his National Security Council about "the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people". His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region."
So when you have foreign policy dictated by greedy businessmen, this is hte kind of thing that happens.
"Muslims do not hate our freedoms, but rather they hate our policies," a September 2004 report from the Defense Science Board on Strategic Communications concluded.
"Among the policies that Muslims resent, it added, are what they see as "one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights" and long-standing support for what Muslims "collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.""
The Defense Science Board on Strategic Communications is a 40-member task force made up of diplomatic, military, academic and business experts, which advises the Pentagon on policy matters related to defense.
"Furthermore, the advisory group said when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, it is seen as "no more than self-serving hypocrisy" in the United States' national interest and "patronizing ... at the expense of Muslim self-determination."" http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/06/we-were-attacked-by-al-qaeda-because.html
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I think, and this is my utterly personal and nonprofessional opinion, that after 9/11 Americans looked to their President for leadership in the midst of disaster. And when that President, who was charismatic enough for them to elect him, came into their living rooms with his cronies and said things that tied Saddam to Al Qaeda, well, by golly, then that's what it is. Even though, at the time, many news outlets and foreign governments as I recollect were saying, "hey, hold on there, there really isn't any proof of a link." So who were they going to believe, their President who stands tall, or a bunch of talking heads, intellectuals and Frenchmen?
Well, shame on us Americans for putting faith in self-deluded duplicitous politicians. And double shame on them, for taking advantage of the trust placed in them by the American people and chase folly down the rabbit hole to ruin.
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
No it didn't, the problem was that the powers that be had other priorities rather than keeping Americans safe.
US Intelligence About Iraq Didn't Really Fail, It Was Manipulated PLUS, hte intel was checked out BEFORE the war so you can't use faulty intel as an excuse for the war! Remember (although Bush lies about it) Saddam DID allow the inspectors in. "Bush memoir makes selective use of Iraq data By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer "Bush left out that Blix later said, "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far" with inspectors. "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt."" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhdMA_KhcwA&feature=share&list=PL6BBE308B0AA273F0
And their lust for a war with Iraq was so intense that they were willing to do this: Neoconservative deviousness put us at risk and paved the way for 9/11
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
You are not going to get these men to say, "Yeah, we sat back, ignored the warnings, so that when an attack happened we could use it as a pretext for our agenda to attack Iraq." BUT their excuses for why the President should ignore the warnings he was being given are so contrived and self-serving that it basically exposes what they were up to. Think about what a BS excuse and that they had the audacity to argue that intel waring of the attacks should be ignored and the reason they gave telegraphed their agenda!
No wonder so many idiots believe 911 truth.
Saddam, was he your hero? Would you rather have him in power, or gone.
"Muslims do not hate our freedoms, but rather they hate our policies,"
Oops, our freedom is to have our policies. Oops, they hate our freedom. We can say anything we want about their prophet, and they can't. Freedom.
We can drink beer, they have to hide to drink beer. Freedom
We can talk and walk with any woman, they can only with their sister, mother, family. Freedom
No wonder most the terrorists were Saudi, they can't do much but live off their government, oil money... we have the freedom to be dirt dumb poor, no car, and no housing from the government. Freedom
The poor Saudi, taken care of, bored to death with all their freedom. Freedom. So they used our freedom to rush the cockpit and ruin our freedom to be stupid, open cockpits, and regular hijackings.
I find it funny you were fooled by Bush, or unable to do anything about it. Do you vote? Did you tell your representatives Bush lied? What did you do to stop Bush lies from being acted on.
I would have removed Saddam from power for free, extra credits; he tried to kill me, he should be removed; oops we was.
Kevin Rayan is a nut; are you supporting his idiotic claims?
Explain why Saudis hate the USA? Was it popeyes chicken menu, the greedy guys... Have you been to Saudi land? No? When will you visit? Do they have tourism? Are you muslim? When will you visit the land of Saudi? Can we vote on Saddam? I say get rid of him.
Poor Kevin is too stupid on 911 to know he is nuts.
Last edited:
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
I don't think your memory is accurate, at the time, the dominating media was feeding the public lies and deception. You may be confusing things that happened years later. Note that the reporter challenges Bush years too late: The Continuing BS from AP and the MSM about Iraq and 9/11
(in that video, the reporter asks a question years too late. Also note that other examples of the media's performance show the media still playing the game of deceiving the public.)
This is one of the most frustrating things with the truthers, their stupidity is undermining efforts to hold powerful people accountable for real wrongs.
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
Yes, because of people like you who turn a blind eye to real crimes. You couldn't dispute anything I said so you start talking stupid with BS like asking me if Saddam was my hero. Grow up and deal with the fact that U.S. foreign policy is written by men with few morals.
If freedom in the U.S. means ANYTHING, it means having the right to decide if we want to put our lives at risk for particular policies. The powers that be have been feeding the public lies about why we were attacked. They have been suppressing the fact that it is specific policies which anger those who are attacking us.
I'm quoting from "a September 2004 report from the Defense Science Board on Strategic Communications" what are you basing you assertions on?
As far as the motive for the 9/11 attack, we know what the powers that be were doing, working to keep the American people in the dark about why their lives are being put at risk: The Real 9/11 Conspiracy: Traitorous 9/11 Commissioners Served Israel Agenda http://youtu.be/bzYM9ZnWsnk
Wow, you have a youtube video. Wow. You win.
With advertisements, wow, do you make money selling woo too? Wow. The voice is bad, get a new voice for that silly video of woo.
Last edited:
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
Your question was answered, I quoted what the National Security Council said when President Eisenhower asked them:
"President Eisenhower asked his National Security Council about "the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people". His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region."
Many people hate to see people who they identify with brutalized and killed. THis has been explained by those who have attacked us by the specific demands they have made but people like Thomas Friedman use their positions to con the public. Friedman wrote that the terrorists "have no specific ideological program or demands" but that is a lie. He had the audacity to write that after Ramzi Yousef sent a letter to the NYT:
"OUR DEMANDS ARE:
1 - Stop all military, economical, and
political aid to Israel.
2 - All diplomatic relations with Israel
must stop.
3 - Not to interfere with any of the
Middle East countries interior affairs."
"Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt
guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden
by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef
said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence
could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed
his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S.
policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight
and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve
Coll, Ghost Wars p273
Last edited:
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
Am I arguing with a truther? That video, which you are mocking, quotes from the 9/11 hearings and I show how key testimony was suppressed. And we know why because the two top commissioners ADMITTED why in a book they wrote after the 9/11 report was published.
Commission Chairmen Admit Whitewashing the Cause of the Attacks" is the review that clued me in on the fact that the "book by the chairmen of the 9/11 commission admits that the commission whitewashed the root cause of the 9/11 attacks." Eland makes these critical points in his review:
"The book usefully details the administration's willful misrepresentation of its incompetent actions that day, but makes the shocking admission that some commission members deliberately wanted to distort an even more important issue. Apparently, unidentified commissioners wanted to cover up the fact that U.S. support for Israel was one of the motivating factors behind al Qaeda's 9/11 attack. Although Hamilton, to his credit, argued for saying that the reasons al Qaeda committed the heinous strike were the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and American support for Israel, the panel watered down that frank conclusion to state that U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. policy on Iraq are "dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."
Some commissioners wanted to cover up the link between the 9/11 attack and U.S. support for Israel because this might imply that the United States should alter policy and lessen its support for Israeli actions. How right they were. The question is simple: if the vast bulk of Americans would be safer if U.S. politicians moderated their slavish support of Israel, designed to win the support of key pressure groups at home, wouldn't it be a good idea to make this change in course? Average U.S. citizens might attenuate their support for Israel if the link between the 9/11 attacks and unquestioning U.S. favoritism for Israeli excesses were more widely known."
The book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" does reveal what those studying this issue have suspected, that some commissioners on the 9/11 Commission argued against and stopped the Commission from making a recommendation about the main motive for the 9/11 attacks: US support of Israel."
Some commissioners were more worried about protecting a foreign policy rather than telling the American public the truth that they worked to suppress the main motive for the 9/11 attack! Commissioners "rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy. "
(so they were worried the public might want to reassess the policy of supporting Israel so they refused to fulfill their mandate to create a full accounting of the 9/11 attacks, they were deceptive in putting the 9/11 Report together because their first concern was protecting polices, not the people and their rights.
Gosh, they hate us for our freedom to do what we want, support Israel. Darn, you seem to debunk yourself. Wow, big surprise here. I spent time in Saudi Arabia, seems like Israel does not exist; so how can we support something to most which does not exist. They don't recognize Israel. What is new.
Too bad Your Arab brothers can't be like MLK or Gandhi. What do you have for Kevin and his book of woo? Anything on topic?
Are you anti-Israel? Kevin Ryan fits into your stuff how? How much you make advertising this stuff?
Last edited:
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
You think you are clever by trying to blow smoke to obscure the fact that politicians and pundits have been deceiving the public about why we are being targeted? If it could not be any more clear that they are trying to hide the fact that it is about foreign policies, here is a politician explicitly lying about it: http://youtu.be/dd2dwf0OP2A