(OT) WTC Buildings.

[robtronik]

Hey, like I said before, no answers to certain questions about 911....

My personal belief is that Bin Ladin is winning this, at least as far as what he wanted to accomplish.
If you examine what he wants, and examine what is happening, you will agree.
Bin ladin wants the middle east to rise up against the west, and unite in a struggle against the infidels. He wants a blatant US/foriegn military prescience in the middle east to accomplish this. the US attacking a country over there, and having a hard time securing it etc. is perfect. A non fundamentalist dictatorship being toppled like Saddams regime is perfect.
An immediate halting of further terrorist attacks works in his favor too, let US atrocities ignite hatred in the hearts of middle eastern youth.

Israel in war, America threatening Iran, the whole thing is as if he planned it.
I'm serious about this, terrorists are only created when a people feel like there is no other alternative to living with their beliefs and feeling of autonomy. Terrorists are created when a foreign presence occupies a nation.

Whether or not the elections were totally democratic etc. doesn't matter, if US military personal are present it doesn't feel like freedom. I know that if I had to walk past a soldier with a gun who spoke another language, and knew that my intent was to vote for whoever was against the military presence, ( I don't think they had that choice though, can't recall hearing about a candidate that was calling for immediate US withdrawal? ) , I might just not show.....
Wonder how much of a tax will be levied on them for our services?

What would the military do if they voted in a president who was friendly with Iran, and called for immediate US withdrawal?

Bin Ladin is winning this so far.

not so sure about that. The most he can do issue videos at this point and his leadership is being picked off, killed one by one, and he's constantly on the run.

They can't affect the isreali hez fight in any concievable manner - only in video declarations and to top it off, this is the mother of all fights they've been wanting.

And Hams and Hez put Al Q. on the sidelines for it. Irrelevancy is what's next for Osama - or either when his internal organs/liver fails on him. It says something when his brother needs to be released from captivity by Syria/Iran to help fight in the Isreali conflict. Where's Osama?

Probably in a cave trying to get his cell phone to work.

rob.

[glu]

1) No one said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. You aren't paying attention to why he was removed and this is a straw man argument and mistaken.

you are right, this is what he said

I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Nice tricky wording...

He intended to imply connection between 9/11 and Iraq. So he never black and white stated Saddam was responsible for the attacks, but he manipulated the situation to mobilize the support of congress. Regardless of if it were for a ultilitarian purpose, it was manipulation, it was dishonest.

[robtronik]

until one realizes that he was directly speaking to the idea that in a post 9/11 we cannot let rulers like Saddam, who are sworn and motivated enemies of the U.S., be allowed to run amok with regard to U.N. resolutions and the ability to harbor and create WMD's.

I don't consider that manipulation, I consider it a clear statement on our new policy with regard to enemy states who have motivation to support, utlize, and harbor WMDs with the intent of using them.

Add terrorism to that mix and you've got the reason why he was removed. Obviously if 9/11 hadn't occured, Saddam would probably still be in office, but that day changed everything with regard to our strategy towards countries and guys like him. Exit Taliban for the same reason. If Iran isn't smart, it may find itself in the same delimma with its nuclear ambitions as well as it support of Hez and other terrorist organizations. Already the U.N. security council has recommended sanctions unanimously if Iran doesn't comply. It only goes down hill for them if they don't change their strategy...

Pretty clear to me.

rob.

[mikemc]

Hey, like I said before, no answers to certain questions about 911....

My personal belief is that Bin Ladin is winning this, at least as far as what he wanted to accomplish.
If you examine what he wants, and examine what is happening, you will agree.
Bin ladin wants the middle east to rise up against the west, and unite in a struggle against the infidels. He wants a blatant US/foriegn military prescience in the middle east to accomplish this. the US attacking a country over there, and having a hard time securing it etc. is perfect. A non fundamentalist dictatorship being toppled like Saddams regime is perfect.
An immediate halting of further terrorist attacks works in his favor too, let US atrocities ignite hatred in the hearts of middle eastern youth.

Israel in war, America threatening Iran, the whole thing is as if he planned it.
I'm serious about this, terrorists are only created when a people feel like there is no other alternative to living with their beliefs and feeling of autonomy. Terrorists are created when a foreign presence occupies a nation.

Whether or not the elections were totally democratic etc. doesn't matter, if US military personal are present it doesn't feel like freedom. I know that if I had to walk past a soldier with a gun who spoke another language, and knew that my intent was to vote for whoever was against the military presence, ( I don't think they had that choice though, can't recall hearing about a candidate that was calling for immediate US withdrawal? ) , I might just not show.....
Wonder how much of a tax will be levied on them for our services?

What would the military do if they voted in a president who was friendly with Iran, and called for immediate US withdrawal?

Bin Ladin is winning this so far.

not so sure about that. The most he can do issue videos at this point and his leadership is being picked off, killed one by one, and he's constantly on the run.

They can't affect the isreali hez fight in any concievable manner - only in video declarations and to top it off, this is the mother of all fights they've been wanting.

And Hams and Hez put Al Q. on the sidelines for it. Irrelevancy is what's next for Osama - or either when his internal organs/liver fails on him. It says something when his brother needs to be released from captivity by Syria/Iran to help fight in the Isreali conflict. Where's Osama?

Probably in a cave trying to get his cell phone to work.

rob.

fwiw, here is what I think about that: talking about what happened and answering the questions that are still unanswered about the attack is different from talking about dismantling the attacking force.

imo there should be no talking about dismantling the attacking force, it should just be done. this is the administration's biggest failure, they do not have a plan for that nor an effective demeanor to the countries that are involved, and they are using military force for something it is not well suited for.

If the use of military force was at all warranted, on 9.12.2001, a draft should have been instituted. Countries acting as state sponsors of terrorism should have been identified, allies against those countries engaged in partnership, and their roles as sponsors clearly explained to the US public and for the reasons for going to war against them. War should have been declared as soon as reaching full effective force, war on the governments and peoples of those countries, the destruction of key military and government target in those countries executed in concert with our allies. Oil producing nations whose claims of being uninvolved in sponsoring terrorism would be protected, those whose claims could not would be destroyed in such a way as to leave their oilfields in tact.

If you are not going to use military force that way, then it becomes a sick game. It is a huge, horrible, terrible responsibility, that's why it is so much better to avoid it.

[Rod Underleaf]

Immortal Technique on 9/11 http://youtube.com/watch?v=A4m1HmjJIQM

[glu]

Obviously if 9/11 hadn't occured, Saddam would probably still be in office

word to that.

[Machinesworking]

not so sure about that. The most he can do issue videos at this point and his leadership is being picked off, killed one by one, and he's constantly on the run.

That hasn't changed p[ost 911, we wanted him dead, before 911. th only difference is we now have no idea what country he is in, before we knew he was somewhere in the hills of Afghanistan.

They can't affect the isreali hez fight in any concievable manner - only in video declarations and to top it off, this is the mother of all fights they've been wanting.

Al Q. are not a regular military, you have no idea if they are apart of the hez fight. I seriously wouldn't doubt if some Al Q. people were there. it's been pointed out before that Al Q. are less of an organization than the IRA was/is, and more of a loose knit cell with Ladins funding...

And Hams and Hez put Al Q. on the sidelines for it. Irrelevancy is what's next for Osama - or either when his internal organs/liver fails on him. It says something when his brother needs to be released from captivity by Syria/Iran to help fight in the Isreali conflict. Where's Osama?

On the sidelines like he always is, I've never heard of him leading any army into battle just a few terrorist cells. He helped fund the Afghan rebels, and terrorist actions around the world, against the US etc. but that's about it.

1. We haven't caught him.

2. There are undoubtedly more middle eastern teenage men willing to die to get a chance to attack the US now than before 911.

3. We are less respected around the world because of our actions in Iraq than we have ever been before. America has become seen as a rouge nation by a good portion of the free world.

4. We have not secured Iran, we continue to kill people there that have little or nothing to do with the battle. If you think the publicity was bad here the states in regards to the families killed in retaliation for the death of a US soldier, think about what that has done to our image in the middle east. That's on single incidence, war brings thousands of these into the consciousness of the vanquished.

Why do you think that the UN hasn't stepped in to take over? Personally I think the current administration has too may "stipulations" for them to think of it as anything more than condoning the financial plundering that's happening.

US semi truck drivers are being paid $100,000 a year to drive oil trucks there. Why would we need to hire US people to do that? Who's in control of their oil?

I really don't see how any of this works in our favor as opposed to Bin Ladins?

[glu]

I've never really cared for conspiracy theories before, but I do care for common sense, laws of physics, and objective investigation into crime, all three of which have been greatly compromised in the whole 911 affair. I find that offensive, and I did not know a single person lost in that tragedy. Who gives a fuck about fancy conspiracies. The families and friends of those people deserve to have questions answered and they're not.

That is a big big fucking problem.

grb

[Sales Dude McBoob]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

Pull it.

Pull what, exactly?

[Machinesworking]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

Pull it.

Pull what, exactly?

Oh you know..... go into a burning building and plant explosives strategically to topple it. Firemen are of course trained to do this.

[Machinesworking]

I don't consider that manipulation, I consider it a clear statement on our new policy with regard to enemy states who have motivation to support, utlize, and harbor WMDs with the intent of using them.

Add terrorism to that mix and you've got the reason why he was removed. .

So, the US needs no checks and balances, we can attack any country now if we think they may have WMD, or harbor terrorists.... What do we do if we are wrong? What if the country wasn't harboring terrorists? and had no WMD?
What do we do then?

Big surprise, Iraq had no WMD, and did not, at the time of attack harbor Al Q.
What do you think middle eastern people think of that?

[knotkranky]

Ok, so what do we do ? How can anyone or group for that matter, make sure this scale of government corruption never hurts us again? If many of the conspiracies are true, (and the facts are plenty) what line of action should be taken to be absolutely effective in fixing this problem? What would you do and why?

.

[TekMonki]

Not sure if this was posted or not, but I can't be arsed to wade through 9 pages of back and forth.

NORAD tapes of 9/11. A bit long, but interesting read. In essence, NORAD and air controllers basically lost those planes that day. At several points they thought there were many more hijackings than there wore and things were complicated by a lot of misinformation.

Audio recordings in the article.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

[deva]

9/11 was the trigger, but not the cause, for beginning to look at rogue states that defied international resoutions via the U.N. differently. Its all there.

The rogue state that has defied the most UN resolutions is Israel. In fact, Israel has defied more UN resolutions than the rest of the world combined.

BTW, all your evidence that you discount in hindsight was widely accepted as fact across the board by prior administrations and other countries intelligence as well. Lies? No. Mistaken? Maybe. The jury is still out on that. They are finding evidence via the captured documents every day of memos and orders given by Saddam showing evidence of WMD cover up.

Funny, every independent news website knew it was lies beforehand. There was piles of evidence. The Niger forgeries were known well before the US launched its full scale attack. And no, you are wrong. The jury is still not out. The jury is in. All the presented infortmation was false or grossly misleading. Blatantly so. Enough so that no group of thinking people could possible not have known the truth. Millions upon millions of people around the world knew the truth. It was printed repeatedly in numerous international publications.

But all that doesn't really matter now does it?

Actually it does matter. Any admistration that would lie the country into a war of aggression, needs to be removed. We owe it to all the US soldiers who have died for lies. Lies told for greed and personal gain. We owe it to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. We owe it to all the US vets who are sick from depleted uranium poisoning. We owe it to the millions of Iraqis who will be suffering cancers and birth defect from hundreds of tons of uranium dropped upon their cities and towns. We owe it to ourselves if we want to live with any self respect in the world community.

He did use them on his own people

Saddam used mustard gas and similar chemical agents on Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. At that time he also used the gas on Iraqi Kurds near the border. It is not clear if those Kurds were aiding Iran or not.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has used banned chemical weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is currently doing the same in Lebanon. We certainly have no moral authority to condemn someone else for doing what we are ourselves doing. And with even greater moral ambiguity.

and did invade kuwait and did kick U.N. inspectors out his country and did defy the no fly zones and did not provide the proof of removing said WMD's etc. etc. etc. So, you should think hard about who you are trying to protect and then also accuse in past events.

rob.

First, UN inspectors were kicked out because some of them were caught spying and targeting installations for US military intelligence. Second, it is not our right to establish no fly zones in another country. Third, you cannot possibly provide proof for removing something you never had in the first place. Saddam provided all the proof that was needed. Weapons inspectors, after many diligent inspections, found no substantive evidence.

And even if there had been chemical weapons? So? We have them, and use them on people, including civilians. Iraq certainly had 0 chance of threatening US soil. It is the US that is the agressor there. The Iraqi people hate the US military being there, just as you would hate it if China were occupying your country and dictating the course of your life.

Of course we could also get into what a disaster Iraq has become. And how we took a secular country and turned it into a religious theocracy. We took a highly educated country, where people of many religions could live, where women worked as teachers, doctors, engineers, and turned it into a place where those people can no longer live as they wish. Obviously Saddam was brutal to those who would displace him, but if you kept away from government criticism, life was pretty good for many people. Nothing like the horror that is happening there now.

We took a country with a lower infant mortality rate than the US and sent that rate soaring, with a skyrocketing rate of horrific birth defects and cancers. You know, two heads, no eyes, no mouth, no skin, no arms, that sort of thing. That is from the radioactive depleted uranium we dropped upon them by the hundreds of tons. All of that adds up to hundreds of times the radioactive effect of the hiroshima bomb. So indeed, the US has again carried out a nuclear war.

[Machinesworking]

Ok, so what do we do ? How can anyone or group for that matter, make sure this scale of government corruption never hurts us again? If many of the conspiracies are true, (and the facts are plenty) what line of action should be taken to be absolutely effective in fixing this problem? What would you do and why?

.

What do you mean? Are you asking what we as the American people could do if somehow the government was involved? Plenty. No way of knowing whether it would work or not, but the police have Internal Affairs to take care of corruption. I'm not saying this would work 100%, but it's a start, some sort of independent watchdog group with total access to the government and total loyalty to the ethics of the constitution. We simply do not have that now.
In the case of Iraq, total capitulation to the UN, basically hand over Iraq to the rest of the world, accept our financial losses there as a result of a bad decision, and of course throw large military support into the operation.
In the case of the middle east, make it very clear that we will not deal with any country that is run by a dictator, especially those that the public themselves despise. This would have included Suadi Arabia, and Iran with the sha.
in the case of countries with democratically elected leaders we are at odds with, like Iran now, we go into serious talks with them, we actually try to find a way to deal with them. We really blew our chance with them by not talking to the last guy Iran had, he was a real moderate yet we treated him like an enemy, while bedding with the Kingdom of Suadi Arabia... Doesn't say dick about our love of democracy does it?

Work with countries that have the possibility of actual change, and categorically break ties with all dictators and military governments. This includes countries with socialist leaders who were VOTED IN. The only way we can prove that we give a shit about the well being of other countries besides our own is to start proving that we do.
basically restructure our foreign policy to actually be about spreading democracy, instead of making alliances based on the almighty dollar.