By the way, I don't believe they thought US soldiers would die in large numbers. They figured it would be a 'slam-dunk' like the previous Iraq war. In this respect they are not liars, just incompetent.
Ironically, back in 1990 no one thought Iraq would be a slam dunk. Indeed, estimates were to expect as many as 100,000 casualties.
In every simulation or exercise the US Army had done, their M1A1 Abrams tanks had been soundly defeated by the T-72.
Yet, have a quick read of the Battle of 73 Easting. In a very short space of time 3 US recon squadrons (consisting mainly of M2A3 Bradleys) wiped out 2 Iraqi Heavy Armoured Brigades, suffering the loss of one Bradley and one man.
No, I concede that in the past they may have been different, but I'm talking about now, the present and they are presently not at all rabid.
Yes, I gather the same, based on the observations of others here who have popped over for a look. TAM (I think?) reported they were very civil.
I'm about as impartial as you could find on this subject. No Kiwis died on 9/11 and none have died in service in Iraq. A lot of people died on 9/11 and a hell of a lot more have died in the name of 9/11 since. None of them are Kiwis either.
While that's true, New Zealanders have been killed in subsequent Islamic Terror attacks such as the Bali Bombings. I there's there's a legitimate argument that many subsequent attacks would not have gone ahead had it not been for the success of 9/11.
As such, I think that gives us New Zealanders a legitimate claim for wanting to know the truth - if the US Government carried out 9/11 their actions indirectly may have led to additional ACTUAL terrorist attacks.
In addition, to some degree I feel your criticism of the JREFers is justified - I feel the quality of conversation here has not so much dropped, but been watered-down by a rise in posts that lack substance.
However if it is legitimate to point out the LC forums have only recently become uncivil, it is also legitimate to point out this subforum has only degraded recently.
No thats why you have a base in cuba full of people being detained without trial
I know the US Admin wouldn't agree with me, but they are POWs and you cannot put a POW on trial (except for a crime they commit while in your custody).
Leading a nation to war under false pretense that resulted in the deaths of over 3000 soldiers (so far) and thousands of foreign citizens (some innocent) is called.......................
Russell you often bring up the number of dead soldiers, and you are not the only one. Admittedly I am not an American, but I have to say I am not impressed. 3,000 soldiers is a very very low casualty rate for such an extensive war.
Yes research. The groovy gravy grave paper is cut and paste sounbites. Killtown has done original research on the serenity photo.
As has been pointed out, Killtown's research is exceptionally poor. I am not surprised. Photographic interpretation is incredibly difficult and can be very misleading (I should know!). What was disappointing about Killtown was his inability to adjust his opinions and research based on the addition of more accurate research provided by others.
This is, IMHO, the primary failing of the "9/11 Truth Movement". As animals, we must constantly readjust our understanding of the world around us based on newly received information from our senses. If the nerves in your fingers inform you that they are being exposed to extreme heat, it is better to accept this new information and withdraw your hand, rather than rely on the data from 30 seconds ago that informed you your hand was feeling perfectly fine.
Likewise with research. A good researcher must constantly seek out sources for superior information, and adjust their own data to reflect these better sources.
I would also think a very dedicated and experienced military pilot that was an anti-terrorism strategist and Naval Intelligence reserve officer that was a liaison to the Pentagon and worked in the offices that were impacted until 1996 as well as his former co-workers, would have either used one of his methods of activating the mic to announce a super quick MAYDAY, activated the hijack transponder code, or taken "evasive" action during the first seconds of the incident. His family has even expressed surprise that he was overtaken.
I am not surprised. Of the above mentioned comments, not are actually very important. A civil pilot on a civil flight would not expect or anticipate being grabbed from behind and having their throat slit.
If UA93 is anything to go on, the pilots on all flights were killed immediately. Have you been into the cockpit of a 757 or 767. There is not much room to move. A pilot is a sitting duck. They were most likely dead before they even knew what was happening.
They were the lucky ones.
To play devil's advocate...
Burlingham, as I understand it, did not qualify for the special military honours his family wished him to receive.
From a purely dispassionate point of view, if policy has determined that certain conditions must be met to allow these honours, and these conditions were not met, it is right and proper that such honours are refused. Afterall, he cannot have been the only serviceman who has died and not received such honours.
Nothing about his death (IMHO) made it especially suitable for these honours to be given anyway.
However, from the government's POV, to refuse these honours was a very bad PR move. After 9/11 the US needed as many heroes as could be found.
-Gumboot
