Conspiracy Facts: The Poll

[leftysergeant]

Their letter to Clinton calling for the overthrow of Saddam says it all. They were just waiting for an excuse. Rummy didn't even think anything could be accomplished militarily in Afghanistan. He was whining about "no good targets."

It would have been quite propitious to their plans, had any of them the slightewst idea how to fight and win a war and to secure peace in the aftermath. The few people who actually tried to guide them through the process, such as Erik Shinseki, got booted out of the way in favor of lap-dog generals looking to suck up to the chief.

I think that what was most propitious, from the neo-con point of view was the opportunity to re-shape a country in the neo-con image of a utopia. No unions, privatized infrastructure, laissez-faire investment by foreign corporations and all that. They wanted to prove that Europe recovered from WWII in spite of, rather than because of the Marshall plan.

They were wrong.

Had these people a lick of common sense, they could have assured their hold on power for the next century just on the basis of their response to 9/11. As it is, they have to rely on hackable voting machines.

 

[RedIbis]

Their letter to Clinton calling for the overthrow of Saddam says it all. They were just waiting for an excuse. Rummy didn't even think anything could be accomplished militarily in Afghanistan. He was whining about "no good targets."

It would have been quite propitious to their plans, had any of them the slightewst idea how to fight and win a war and to secure peace in the aftermath. The few people who actually tried to guide them through the process, such as Erik Shinseki, got booted out of the way in favor of lap-dog generals looking to suck up to the chief.

I think that what was most propitious, from the neo-con point of view was the opportunity to re-shape a country in the neo-con image of a utopia. No unions, privatized infrastructure, laissez-faire investment by foreign corporations and all that. They wanted to prove that Europe recovered from WWII in spite of, rather than because of the Marshall plan.

They were wrong.

Had these people a lick of common sense, they could have assured their hold on power for the next century just on the basis of their response to 9/11. As it is, they have to rely on hackable voting machines.

You're advocating an incompetence theory. This is an effective cover for intended incompetence, intended chaos. The goal is not peace, war is profit.

Long term occupation translates to long term profits. This is not achieved by democracy and an independent Iraq.

 

[WildCat]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.

And that trumps all that stuff, whatchamcallit, that tell-tale stuff, the uhhh, ahhh, ah yes! The EVIDENCE! You know, the stuff you have completely ignored?

 

[RedIbis]

And that trumps all that stuff, whatchamcallit, that tell-tale stuff, the uhhh, ahhh, ah yes! The EVIDENCE! You know, the stuff you have completely ignored?

The FBI has no evidence linking OBL to 9/11. PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" describes the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

You do the math.

 

[Horatius]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.

So if someone breaks into my house and steals a $500 TV set, and I then go out and buy a $2000 security system, by your logic, the security company was the most likely perpetrator?

 

[WildCat]

The FBI has no evidence linking OBL to 9/11.

False.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" describes the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

No, it does not.

You do the math.

2 lies in 2 sentences, is this a numerology thing?

 

[leftysergeant]

The FBI has no evidence linking OBL to 9/11. PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" describes the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

You do the math.

That we are being led by belligerent morons does not mean that there are not belligerent morons outside our borders who want to destroy us militarily, culturally and financially.

The election of GWB was propitious to al Qaeda.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You know I have to wonder if RedIbis read the same document I did. It doesn't describe the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event" at all. It says that the transformation of the military to new technology they think needs to occur will take a long time, unless there is a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

This is a bit like someone writting a report saying that the civil dence systems are run down and need to be upgraded, but that such an upgrade will likely be slow happening unless there is a volcanic eruption. They aren't calling for one to jhappen, just pointing out that the speed will be different if one occurs than if it doesn't.

Not only that, but the paper describes the middle east as currently stable, pointing out that the areas of concern that need to be looked at are Southest Asia and Southeast Europe. It talks about watching out for Countries that are going to become a threat (China, Iran, North Korea) not terrorist groups, infact it seems to discount terrorist groups as a major threat.

The whole basis of the paper is 'maintaining our current peace through having a big stick' not 'let's make money through war.' It talks about strengthening and having non-weary forces that are capable of fighting tomorrow's wars so as to make sure that those that would threaten the peace and security that had been won through the past efforts would think twice knowing the US was ready, not weaking the US's forces by sending them into battle and wearing out already damaged and worn hardware in battles that the paper claims they aren't ready or equipped to fight.

Either RedIbis and mjd1982 were reading a different paper, or they just didn't read more then one line of it.

 

[Civilized Worm]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.

Yes that's a good idea when you're drawing up a list of suspects, but then you've got to look at the evidence.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The FBI has no evidence linking OBL to 9/11

Wrong. They have no evidence that they present in front of a court due to chain of custody issues. That is different to not having any evidence.

 

[PhantomWolf]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.

So if a guy gets shot during a mugging and the mugger stole his wallet with a grand total $100 in it, whereas his wife gets an insurance payout of half a million dollars, we suspect the wife?

 

[CHF]

RedIbis, have you found that quote yet?

What's the delay?

You say PNAC describes the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

Show me the full quote.

 

[stateofgrace]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.

Who benefits the most?

Well you’ve got some guy saying this.

1995

The urgent thing was communism, but the next target was America... This is an open war up to the end, until victory

1996

What happened in Riyadh and [Dhahran] when 24 Americans were killed in two bombings is clear evidence of the huge anger of Saudi people against America. The Saudis now know their real enemy is America."

As for their accusations of terrorizing the innocent, the children, and the women, these are in the category of 'accusing others with their own affliction in order to fool the masses.' The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women and children in the Muslim world and elsewhere.

1997

We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation."

1998

We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/edicts.html

The same guy who as repeatedly claimed responsibility for an attack on the US which cost this...

The September 11 attacks inflicted casualties and material damages on a far greater scale than any other terrorist aggression in recent history. Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 percent of its office space and a number of businesses ceased to exist. Close to 200,000 jobs were destroyed or relocated out of New York City, at least temporarily. The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11 billion for a total direct cost of $27.2 billion.

And much more , feel free to read the link here.

And then there is the cost of the war on terror itself.

The 'war on terror' is costing Americans approximately $7 billion US every month. According to a new Congressional report, the bill could exceed half a trillion dollars by 2010

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...nterror_congresserport_cost_20051007/20051007


This is not including the cost in human live which is in the thousands.

So who do you actually, really think benefited from the 911 attacks? The US who is spending billions, as lost billions and is in the middle of an extremely unpopular war. Or some guy who wants to destroy America and kill her citizens?

 

[RedIbis]

Who benefits the most?



So who do you actually, really think benefited from the 911 attacks? The US who is spending billions, as lost billions and is in the middle of an extremely unpopular war. Or some guy who wants to destroy America and kill her citizens?


[/SIZE][/FONT]

Let me help you out here. You mean who benefited more? A guy who is either dead of kidney failure, bombing, or assassination, or an administration who has mismanaged a trillion dollars and fed it through no bid contracts to their cronies.

Try again.

 

[Par]

RedIbis, have you found that quote yet?

What's the delay?

You say PNAC describes the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

Show me the full quote.

Further, if the PNAC really were advocating either carrying out or facilitating an act of mass-murder and high-treason, does it really seem likely that they’d document these ambitions and then release them onto the internet?

 

[Civilized Worm]

Let me help you out here. You mean who benefited more? A guy who is either dead of kidney failure, bombing, or assassination, or an administration who has mismanaged a trillion dollars and fed it through no bid contracts to their cronies.

Try again.

That's an impressive false dilemma, in fact it's a false dilemma within a false dilemma as the person who benefits the most isn't automatically guilty.

 

[stateofgrace]

Let me help you out here. You mean who benefited more? A guy who is either dead of kidney failure, bombing, or assassination, or an administration who has mismanaged a trillion dollars and fed it through no bid contracts to their cronies.

Try again.

No you try again, Are you claiming that Al Qaeda did not carry out this attack?

Offer your proof.

Are you claiming UBL is dead?

Offer you proof

if you are claiming that the US has benefited from 911 offer your proof and offer the reason why they would cause billions of dollars worth of damage to their own infrastructure an then decide to spend billions more on a war against an enemy that you appear to be claiming does not exist.

 

[CHF]

RedIbis, I take it from your silence that you can't find the PNAC quote where the plotters express the desire or need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

Don't feel bad. No one else in the twoof movement can find it either.

 

[Corsair 115]

The goal is not peace, war is profit.

Long term occupation translates to long term profits.

That depends greatly on which company you're talking about, doesn't it? It's rather hard to argue 9/11 and its aftermath and the rise in oil prices in recent years has been a boon to the profits of airlines, for example.

So, really, your comment invites the following questions:

Long-term profits for which company or companies? And how exactly do they generate this profit? That is, what line of business are they in?

 

[Peephole]

9/11 wasn't the kind of threat they described in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document. But they were able to (ab)use 9/11 to try and achieve their goals.